Would You Make This Trade?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Jpup

I still think it's a good idea, if that counts.

I'm suprised the general response, as I like all 3 of those Braves players. But I think we're all drinking the Homer = savior koolaid, and it tastes pretty sweet for now.

[Aronchis]

Hudson isn't any savior and may be done as a good pitcher(short guy). You fall for it so easy.

[IslandRed]

I just don't see it from the Braves' perspective. Trading Hudson and Laroche for minimal immediate help (they've already brought in some help for the bullpen) is a declaration that they're going to punt 2007 and use Bailey as the centerpiece of a retooling, and I don't think they're in that mindset.

As for our perspective, it's a net win on talent for us in the short term, even if Hudson is just average. The question is whether the timeframes of the players involved match where we are on the success cycle, and whether they influence that cycle enough to matter. That, I'm not so sure about. It's definitely a win-now move, but if it's not going to get us very far down the road to Serious World Series Contender, I might rather have Bailey's six cheap years.

I freely admit that I'm among the Bailey kool-aid drinkers also. The old adage "There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect" suggests that a team is better off dealing potential for proven performance. But if you follow that unfailingly, you'll never have good young pitching in the majors, which means you'll be paying full fare for your entire rotation. If the team can't afford to do that -- and most can't -- then sometimes you need to roll the dice on potential. Bailey's a guy I'm willing to roll on.

Sooner or later, it always comes down to a GM's ability to separate the jewels from the trading chips.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Jpup

What has Votto proven above AA? I think Votto will be a good player, but LaRoche is much better right now. That's not even being fair to Votto.

It's not really that important to prove anything above AA ball IMHO..... In some of his classic abstracts, Bill James has argued pretty forcefully that its not necesary to require players log extensive time at the AAA level. In fact he also argues as a basic truism, that the truly great players will reach the majors at a younger age than usual. James' opinions aside, its becoming more and more common for major league teams to promote their top prospects from AA to the big dance without any significant time logged AAA. Basically the AAA level is starting to resemble more of a holding tank for shuttling roster help (replacement level players and second tier prospects basically blocked at the major league level) than a true developmental step (at least for the true prospects)...

So here's why the proposed trade is a non-starter IMHO. It addresses two needs by trading/blocking in house solutions (Homer/Votto) that are cheaper with more upside than the two options that would come in return. Basically LaRoche projects as a league average first baseman (.282/.358/.483) who is valuable because he's cheap but who is going to get much more expensive during his approaching arb eligible years. Hudson is intriguing but very expensive as his contract is back loaded. He is going to get very expensive beyond next year-without a guarantee he will give you innings (he'll be 32 next season and his contract goes through what should be his decline years). Finally, first base is the easiest position on the field to solve via replacement level guys. Last year essentially supports this notion as the Reds got by pretty well from squeezing blood from the turnips at firstbase last season.... Signing C. Wilson does enough to address the Reds need at first for '07 to satisfy me and it doesn't require giving up anything potentially useful....

Now, all of that being said, the in-house solutions aren't going to be automatic ones for '07 so I understand the downside. Basically Votto has only become a bona fide prospect because he had a break out season (.319/.408/.547) last year in a traditionally pitcher dominant league. Basically he still has things to prove and probably is not ready to make the jump in '07. Krivsky's statements about Homer needing seasoning in AAA basically is lip service, I think, because there is a lack of consensus within the organisation regarding Homer's command. They are basically hedging their bets. He's probably going to be on the 25 man roster no later than August.

So IMHO, I'd frame this particular proposal as: "would you rather trade cheap/in-house but win tomorrow for expensive and try to win now?". I'd prefer the in-house for these two particular needs.

Anyway, thats the world according to me for what its worth....

[PuffyPig]

Bad time to get Hudson, bad time to trade Bailey.

Small market teams don't get better trading players like Bailey for players like Hudson. It's the other way around.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by pedro

IIRC, Hudson is scheduled to make 32 million over the next 2 years. I just don't think he'll produce at a level that would make that good investment.

I know it was just a typo but actually Hudson is scheduled to make $19M over the next two years. Your point is still valid....the Reds would be on the hook for alot of money over his total contract:

Hudson:
07:$6M,
08:$13M,
09:$13M,
10:$12M mutual option

To me the issues with him are completely related to injury risk and payroll. If he's healthy and back to normal, he is projected by Pecota (they're pretty good with pitchers) to be a solid guy through his contract years. He's not the dominant guy of his early years in Oakland but he is still an extreme groundball pitcher with very solid stuff that should translate well in GABP IMHO.... Its all money and risk though...

[pedro]

Originally Posted by jojo

I know it was just a typo but actually Hudson is scheduled to make $19M over the next two years. Your point is still valid....the Reds would be on the hook for alot of money over his total contract:

Hudson:
07:$6M,
08:$13M,
09:$13M,
10:$12M mutual option

To me the issues with him are completely related to injury risk and payroll. If he's healthy and back to normal, he is projected by Pecota (they're pretty good with pitchers) to be a solid guy through his contract years. He's not the dominant guy of his early years in Oakland but he is still an extreme groundball pitcher with very solid stuff that should translate well in GABP IMHO.... Its all money and risk though...

ok, so it's not as bad as I thought. I'd sure like to have him next year for 6 million, but those last two years are killers.

[AdamDunn]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Bad time to get Hudson, bad time to trade Bailey.

Small market teams don't get better trading players like Bailey for players like Hudson. It's the other way around.

AMEN... this isn't an offense on you jpup, but I think that trade would be absolutely horrible for us.
1) Bailey = Savior (at least for now, I'm afraid he might turn into a Josh Beckett).
2) Salty is coming off a horrible year and has much to prove to come back and become the player everyone thought he was going to be last year.
3) I think Bailey will be a better pitcher than Hudson when he comes up to stay (probably not this year, but the next) and will be cheaper and stay longer.

[indy_dave00]

I'll take my chances on Homer Bailey. Fifteen years from now I'd hate to see John Smoltz acquired for Doyle Alexander comments as Bailey becomes a long time star in Atlanta.