Who to Keep? Who to Deal?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

In theory that's an ok idea. I guess where we disagree is on:

1. Stubbs potential.
2. Dickerson's trade value.

I'm convinced now that Stubbs will be a productive major league CF with a good glove. I'm not convinced that he'll be "the best player in the league at his position." I actually think that a platoon of Dickerson and maybe Freel for now and Chris Heisey down the road can be just as productive on offense and defense. But, given Stubbs draft status, I think he would bring back much more in trade than a Dickerson or a Heisey or both together would.

I'd choose the cost efficient and productive platoon along with a high caliber player that Stubbs could fetch at another position of need over keeping Stubbs and eventually taking scraps for the other guys who lose their value due to lack of playing time while Stubbs plays CF.

He said Stubbs has the potential to be that guy, and he is right. He isn't that guy right now, but if his power develops some more (and I really believe it will develop into a 15-25 HR type guy) then he really could be one of the best hitting centerfielders in baseball as well as one of the best defenders.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

He said Stubbs has the potential to be that guy, and he is right. He isn't that guy right now, but if his power develops some more (and I really believe it will develop into a 15-25 HR type guy) then he really could be one of the best hitting centerfielders in baseball as well as one of the best defenders.

Maybe. I think they could get the same 15 to 25 HR production out of a platoon and Dickerson, at least, is every bit as good on defense. Heisey is just a cut below from what I understand.

[redhawk61]

delete post

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mth123

Maybe. I think they could get the same 15 to 25 HR production out of a platoon and Dickerson, at least, is every bit as good on defense. Heisey is just a cut below from what I understand.

Sure, they may be able to get that kind of HR total out of someone/Dickerson.... but I don't really think that changes Stubbs potential at all because it doesn't have anything to do with him. Dickerson isn't as good as Stubbs is and isn't likely to give you similar numbers. Dickerson just swings and misses too much.

That said, I am fully prepared to go into 2009 with Dickerson penciled in at CF. I think he can handle himself just fine there until Drew Stubbs, or someone else is ready to step in and take over.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Sure, they may be able to get that kind of HR total out of someone/Dickerson.... but I don't really think that changes Stubbs potential at all because it doesn't have anything to do with him. Dickerson isn't as good as Stubbs is and isn't likely to give you similar numbers. Dickerson just swings and misses too much.

That said, I am fully prepared to go into 2009 with Dickerson penciled in at CF. I think he can handle himself just fine there until Drew Stubbs, or someone else is ready to step in and take over.

I agree that Stubbs will probably be better, but they both shouldn't play and I think the combo of Dickerson and whatever Stubbs could bring back would be better than Stubbs and whatever Dickerson may fetch.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by mth123

I agree that Stubbs will probably be better, but they both shouldn't play and I think the combo of Dickerson and whatever Stubbs could bring back would be better than Stubbs and whatever Dickerson may fetch.

Stubbs should only be traded if it's for the missing piece for us to contend in 2009.

We should be keeping players who might be superstars as we get ourselves into contending status.

Trading them to get "a little better" is senseless.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by mth123

I agree that Stubbs will probably be better, but they both shouldn't play and I think the combo of Dickerson and whatever Stubbs could bring back would be better than Stubbs and whatever Dickerson may fetch.

At least for the time being. Stubbs is still suspect in my eyes. I like the fact that he's maintained his numbers throughout his rise through the minors, it says a lot about his ability to translate that to the next level. Still, those numbers aren't particularly spectacular.

Let the plan be a platoon for right now, and if at some point a few years from now Stubbs proves he can hit RH better than Dickerson, then deal with that then.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Stubbs should only be traded if it's for the missing piece for us to contend in 2009.

We should be keeping players who might be superstars as we get ourselves into contending status.

Trading them to get "a little better" is senseless.

I don't see Stubbs as a guy who could be a superstar. I see .775 OPS with very good defense. Good player in CF, not a superstar. I say flip him now for a SS of the future or a C of the future. I don't advocate dealing him for a one year rental or a journeyman stopgap, but for a similarly talented player at another position. If you can't find a match that brings back some one who can make an actual impact, then by all means keep him and see what happens.

[redhawk61]

Originally Posted by mth123

I don't see Stubbs as a guy who could be a superstar. I see .775 OPS with very good defense. Good player in CF, not a superstar. I say flip him now for a SS of the future or a C of the future. I don't advocate dealing him for a one year rental or a journeyman stopgap, but for a similarly talented player at another position. If you can't find a match that brings back some one who can make an actual impact, then by all means keep him and see what happens.

.775 OPS..Tori Hunter is a career .796 OPS

Stubbs will steal more bases and take more walks than Hunter, but hit with slightly less power, while playing GG defense...So why can't Stubbs be a "superstar". Given your .775 OPS prediction

[mth123]

Originally Posted by redhawk61

.775 OPS..Tori Hunter is a career .796 OPS

Stubbs will steal more bases and take more walks than Hunter, but hit with slightly less power, while playing GG defense...So why can't Stubbs be a "superstar". Given your .775 OPS prediction

Not enough slugging IMO. Stubbs may have a decent OBP but he needs to slug more than .400. He's not going to be the threat that Hunter is. Steals don't impress me much. They are a lot of risk (just watch the Reds for a week and count how many outs they make in the name of trying to steal a base) and add little in terms of creating runs. Its good for a fantasy team, but that's about it. Stubbs downside is if he doesn't add some pop, pitchers won't let him walk so much and the OBP could go south as well.

The point remains that I think the Reds could deal Stubbs for something very useful elsewhere and still get that .775 OPS out of the guys who remain. Those other guys that weren't first round picks won't bring in the additional help the team needs.

[RedlegJake]

Every scout I've read who has anything to say about Stubbs thinks the pop will definitely come. I think "superstar" is a bit strong, personally I reserve that for the top ten or twelve players of a generation but I think he is looking more and more like a player who will reach at least some of his potential and in Stubb's case that is a heck of a lot. Watch him on video or TV and you can see how much better he is than other guys on the field - the way he moves, the instincts, speed, everything Drew struggles with seems mechanical and with the "eye". And the bat is improving rapidly. I look for progression when judging if a guy will meet expectations and in his case you can definitely see it (the improvements).

[RED VAN HOT]

I'll take what is likely to be an unpopular position. I am ready to write off next year as a rebuilding year with long shot playoff potential. The Reds need to sift through a number of B/C grade prospects and determine who fits into their long range plans. Toward that end I would look to move players on the major league roster who do not fit into the long range plans. Freel and Hopper come to mind. A year ago, few were seriously considering Dickerson to be a prospect. He may never have higher trade value than he does now. Keeping EE is dependent on teaching him to use the whole field as a hitter and to throw accurately. I'm more optimistic about the former. Votto is a solid hitter whose defense will improve. I think people are being too quick to confer stardom on Alonzo. He won't be in the majors next year in any event. If after the 2009 season Alonzo appears ready to make the jump, then would be the time to consider trading Votto. A power hitter named Joey would command a king's ransom from a NY team. As for pitching, I hope we have seen the last of Belisle, Coffey, and Majewski. These players may yet have major league careers, but I am convinced they will not be in Cincinnati.

Further, I would not be anxious to spend Mr Castellini's money next year unless it for an exceptional young player with high potential and low risk of injury. Overpaying for mediocrity has been a problem in the past. It ties up payroll and blocks the progression of young talent. If I did trade, it would be major (possibly minor) leaguers at deep positions for A grade prospects at organizationally thin positions. Use 2009 to fill in as many pieces from within the organization as possible. The idea would be to spend the money in 2010 to obtain the specific pieces that are still needed. It pains me to suggest pushing out the date for achieving excellence, because I thought 2009 would be that year. I can only hope I won't be saying the same thing again next year.

If the Reds were to trade prospects, it seems to me that the way to do it is to approach a team about obtaining a specific player from them, and then let that team begin naming the prospects it would accept in return. I would not trade Stubbs or Cozart. Any of the wealth of infielders could be considered for trade.