Bronson Arroyo agrees to two-year contract extension

[Matt700wlw]

Originally Posted by Sabo Fan

While it's not a popular opinion at the moment, I agree with this to a point. I think it's highly unlikely that Arroyo repeats his 2006 numbers and settles in at about leage average starter material for the remainder of his stay with the Reds, or basically duplicates his 2005 season, with a small improvement because he'll be in the NL. I'm concerned about his struggles in July and August of last year as an indicator that he may either wear down or that NL hitters had adjusted to his stuff.

His 2 something ERA in September may disagree...

[Redsland]

For me, these signings are the final nail in the coffin of that old Lindner mentality this board can't let go of. You know, the one that claims, "this cheap team is too cheap to compete because it's cheap."

Two words that abruptly stopped coming out of the front office once Castellini took over are "small" and "market." He stated last year that there was enough money to bump the payroll at the deadline if need be, which the previous regime would never have contemplated. And this offseason he's added, what, $15 million to the payroll? He was perfectly content to eat the contracts of people like Womack, White, Hammond, and Williams without so much as a comment, and then quietly spent millions on LaRue's going away card. No one from the front office opined that two $50,000 Rule 5 picks were "big investments," which certainly would have been the case a few years ago. Nearly every draft pick got signed without any fuss at all. And now we have a good, young core locked up for years to come.

If nothing else, these signings signal that Bob is a man of his word, and that the days of crying poor are gone. We can compete. Or, if we can't, the reason has nothing to do with money.

[reds44]

Originally Posted by TRF

• Jeff Conine
• Juan Castro
• A slew of over 38 years old relievers, some who were NEVER very good signed to MULTI year contracts.
• A bizarre infatuation with a guy that has never succeeded above A+ that has to be on the roster all year long.
• Trading away your BEST defensive catcher.
• More than likely starting Kirk Saarloos. ugh.

Oh, and his best prospects were picked by the previous GM as his first draft flat out sucked.

He signed his two best pitchers. I would expect no less from ANY GM!

What about those points? How do they fit into the plan?

Platoon partner with Hatte until Votto takes over full time.
Defensive replacement who has a knack for getting big hits.
Rule 5 pick, how do you know he will be on the roster all year long. What if he is and suceeds?
Oh you like LaRue but don't get Castro? LaRue sucked last year and had a bad attitude.
See my post about prospects. How do you know his suck?
Boo ground pitchers. It's his fault he had 1 SP when he came here?

[CrackerJack]

Yes good for some longer term stability around these parts for once.

I hope part of his contract stipulated that he could no longer force his bad cover band/music onto the general public from here on out within the greater Cincinnati area. That would just be icing.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Sabo Fan

Simply put, it's not the worst move in the world, but Arroyo had a real nice deal for the next two years from a team standpoint, one that made him very marketable should the desire arise to move him. Now, should he not perform up to expectations in 2007 he all of a sudden becomes extremely hard to move. Personally, I would have cashed him in this winter when teams were spending wildly on pitching mediocrity.

If you don't have a ton of great pitching depth in the minors (which the Reds don't), don't have a surplus of position player talent in the majors to trade (which the Reds don't), and don't have a great free agent market to spend your money in (which the Reds didn't), then you've got to play the odds on moves like this. It's a risk that Arroyo won't live up to his 2006 performance and there's a chance that the Reds bid against themselves and bought high, but its a risk worth taking when weighed against the odds of getting equivalent or better return on prospects who are completely unproven at the ML level.

Plus, there's a very real PR aspect to these two moves (locking in Harang, locking in Arroyo) -- its a signal to the fans that the team is serious about competing in the near future and a signal to players that Cincinnati takes care of it's own. It sends a message, to both free agents and players in the Reds system, that Cincinnati is playing to win and will spend the money to reward players who contribute to building a winning club. No more stories about trades for guys like Scott Rolen being nixed because the finances didn't work. These are the kinds of moves that change attitudes about franchises; they're the kinds of moves that I expect out of St. Louis, as opposed to the previous regimes that played straight of the Pittsburgh Pirates playbook.

Don't underestimate that aspect of this move either.

[westofyou]

While it's not a popular opinion at the moment, I agree with this to a point. I think it's highly unlikely that Arroyo repeats his 2006 numbers and settles in at about leage average starter material for the remainder of his stay with the Reds,

Drop off is probable, Arroyo rocked last year his Runs Saved Above Average is tied for 7th best in modern Reds history, if he drops to 1/2 that he'll have be where Harang was this year in RSAA.

CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
MODERN (1900-)

GAMES STARTED >= 25

RSAA                          YEAR    RSAA      GS     
1    Dolf Luque               1923       66       37   
2    Bucky Walters            1939       58       36   
3    Noodles Hahn             1902       47       36   
4    Dolf Luque               1925       45       36   
5    Jose Rijo                1993       44       36   
6    Bucky Walters            1940       42       36   
T7   Ewell Blackwell          1950       41       32   
T7   Bronson Arroyo           2006       41       35   
T9   Bob Purkey               1962       37       37   
T9   Ewell Blackwell          1947       37       33   
T9   Noodles Hahn             1904       37       34

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

His 2 something ERA in September may disagree...

September callups maybe...

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by Redsland

For me, these signings are the final nail in the coffin of that old Lindner mentality this board can't let go of. You know, the one that claims, "this cheap team is too cheap to compete because it's cheap."

Two words that abruptly stopped coming out of the front office once Castellini took over are "small" and "market." He stated last year that there was enough money to bump the payroll at the deadline if need be, which the previous regime would never have contemplated. And this offseason he's added, what, $15 million to the payroll? He was perfectly content to eat the contracts of people like Womack, White, Hammond, and Williams without so much as a comment, and then quietly spent millions on LaRue's going away card. No one from the front office opined that two $50,000 Rule 5 picks were "big investments," which certainly would have been the case a few years ago. Nearly every draft pick got signed without any fuss at all. And now we have a good, young core locked up for years to come.

If nothing else, these signings signal that Bob is a man of his word, and that the days of crying poor are gone. We can compete. Or, if we can't, the reason has nothing to do with money.

Killer post

[Sabo Fan]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

His 2 something ERA in September may disagree...

I'll agree that his September ERA was impressive, and while I don't know who he pitched against at the end of the season off the top of my head, you're much more likely to find teams who have brought guys up when rosters expanded or have just plain packed it in. Many a September stars have turned into fools gold the following year.

Plus, there's a very real PR aspect to these two moves (locking in Harang, locking in Arroyo) -- its a signal to the fans that the team is serious about competing in the near future and a signal to players that Cincinnati takes care of it's own. It sends a message, to both free agents and players in the Reds system, that Cincinnati is playing to win and will spend the money to reward players who contribute to building a winning club. No more stories about trades for guys like Scott Rolen being nixed because the finances didn't work. These are the kinds of moves that change attitudes about franchises; they're the kinds of moves that I expect out of St. Louis, as opposed to the previous regimes that played straight of the Pittsburgh Pirates playbook.

I don't dispute that this type of deal can change attitudes about a franchise, but the fastest way to do that is to simply win. This isn't a move that made the Reds better as a team. Arroyo was going to be here for two more years at reasonable numbers and he couldn't really do anything about that. To me, spending $25 million on a guy who at the end of the deal likely won't be much more than a #4 starter is a high price to merely change perceptions.

[Matt700wlw]

Originally Posted by Sabo Fan

I'll agree that his September ERA was impressive, and while I don't know who he pitched against at the end of the season off the top of my head, you're much more likely to find teams who have brought guys up when rosters expanded or have just plain packed it in. Many a September stars have turned into fools gold the following year.

I know the Cardinals, Astros, Giants, and Padres were part of it....those teams were in a playoff hunt...they weren't playing minor leaguers for the most part.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by Sabo Fan

I don't dispute that this type of deal can change attitudes about a franchise, but the fastest way to do that is to simply win. This isn't a move that made the Reds better as a team. Arroyo was going to be here for two more years at reasonable numbers and he couldn't really do anything about that. To me, spending $25 million on a guy who at the end of the deal likely won't be much more than a #4 starter is a high price to merely change perceptions.

I think your point is that it did not make the Reds better as a team right now. But it certainly frees the front office up to focus their energy on other moves that will. And it gives them a longer window in which to do this. It did not directly make the team better, but it did indirectly, in opening the door. The only move that will make the Reds better RIGHT NOW is basically spending a lot of cash on a free agent or a trade. The free agent pool was weak and overpriced this year. Trades cannot be predicted and sometimes it takes time to hit on a good one.

I really don't see how anything wrong with this move whatsoever. Quite the opposite in fact. But I always thought Arroyo had a higher ceiling than he was showing in Pittsburgh and, at times, in Boston. I expect him to come down slightly from last year, but I'm much more in the camp that last year was more indicative of the pitcher he actually is than 2005.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

His downfall was also trading Casey for garbage.

Castellini didn't like that.

That was actually an awesome trade for the Reds.

[Chip R]

I can understand why some would want to trade Arroyo after his "career season" last year. It may have been the smart thing to do. It may have been what Billy Beane would have done. Bt I don't think it would have been a good idea. We may disagree about the manager, the GM, the owner, Adam Dunn, Marty, whatever. But I think we can all agree that the Reds Achilles Heel for quite some time has been the lack of quality starting pitching. They haven't been able to develop it, trade for it or sign it on a consistant basis. So why trade a quality starting pitcher? You may be able to get prospects for Arroyo but they better be pitching prospects. And even if they are pitching prospects, there's no guarantee they will be as good as Arroyo. Brandon Claussen was Exhibit A. Now if the Reds had been able to develop young starting pitching on a consistant basis, then I might agree that trading him would be a good idea. If you get rid of Arroyo, you only have one quality starter. Now I'm no math genius but I think two quality starters are much better than one and some maybes.

[M2]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

The plan is clear -- invest in pitching. Defense -- signing Gonzalez, asking Griffey to consider a move to a corner spot., etc., is also clearly a priority, as Krivsky has said it would be. For me, that's sufficient evidence of a plan at work. For those who seem to be saying a plan constitutes being able to strengthen your team in the optimal manner in every area of possible weakness in a single year (i.e, let's get a Detroit-style bullpen tout de suite, thanks, or let's get us a #3 starter chop chop), I'd say there's no GM who can have that kind of plan and accomplish it. If there is such a GM, who is it?

To me it's a statement of current conditions more than a plan.

I agree that you can't expect the whole checklist ticked off in a single year, but by the same token you can't expect to hit a bullseye everytime you address the checklist. Krivsky's collected old stopgaps (if that) in the pen rather than seek out more guys who might fit that Detroit-style mold or who might grow into that #3 starter role.

Desire beyond reason to build that sort of bullpen probably is the explanation for The Trade, but that gets us back to strategic planning. Krivsky didn't have the capital (in terms of talent) to send like he did on Bray and Majewski. Krivsky missed the bullseye (Bray's got upside, but Majewski's your classic pitch-to-contact reliever) and it cost him the players who were his best bets to make a chop-chop move for anything on the shopping list.

How does he turn what he's got into what he needs? What are his options if everything doesn't go absolutely right? Because I can guarantee you many things will go wrong.

I think it's good that Krivsky's addressed the team keystone defense and the pitching (though he's still got a looooong way to go). Yet those are things that any sensible GM would have addressed. They were/are glaring needs. They had/have to be dealt with.

What I don't see from Krivsky is the deeper stuff. He's dealing with the roster, not swinging the organization. He probably figures that if he gets the first one relatively right, he'll have time to accomplish the second. That's certainly the way the industry tends to operate. The problem with it is, if the roster fails him then he doesn't have the organization to fall back on.

[M2]

Originally Posted by jojo

That was actually an awesome trade for the Reds.

Yes, I often find myself getting wistful over the meaningless contract savings it created. Good times.