Cordero for Upton?

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

Getting rid of CoCo would make my day. Why? Because he eats up so much of the resources we need to improve the club. One of Krivsky's biggest blunders was signing a so-called elite closer for a team who hadn't had a winning season in forever. Look at the Cardinals. They chose a Reds castoff as their closer, but that's not the point.

The point is there are a lot of pitchers who could close for the Reds for a lot less money. I hope they explore these options. When and if this team gets near to contending, then let's explore the high priced closer. Until then, Massett will do.

You forget that before the Reds signed Cordero, they couldn't find anyone to save a game. Do you really want that again if you trade Cordero? Sure his contract is huge but you weaken yourself in another area if you trade Cordero.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Krusty

You forget that before the Reds signed Cordero, they couldn't find anyone to save a game. Do you really want that again if you trade Cordero? Sure his contract is huge but you weaken yourself in another area if you trade Cordero.

The options aren't limited to keep Cordero or implode.

Really Cordero hasn't gotten the Reds anywhere.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Krusty

You forget that before the Reds signed Cordero, they couldn't find anyone to save a game. Do you really want that again if you trade Cordero? Sure his contract is huge but you weaken yourself in another area if you trade Cordero.

The Reds didn't have problems with blown saves before Cordero; they had trouble getting through the 7th and 8th innings so that David Weathers could save the game.

This is a much more talented bullpen than it ever was in the few years prior to Cordero. Yes, he helps. But you can't ignore the significant contributions of Massett, Herrera, and Rhodes, even Fisher and Burton. In 2007, the Reds pen was killed by Coffey and Stanton in particular, but also Santos, Gosling, and Saarloos.

Now that the Reds have decide to build a bullpen around talented arms, even if they're young and unproven, instead of a collection of failed starters, the closer is getting more opportunities.

Again, I like Cordero more than Weathers, to be sure. But he does not provide $10M more in production than other effective options. Trading Cordero would not commit us to a horrible bullpen.

[TheNext44]

NM, RMR beat me to it.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

The Reds didn't have problems with blown saves before Cordero; they had trouble getting through the 7th and 8th innings so that David Weathers could save the game.

This is a much more talented bullpen than it ever was in the few years prior to Cordero. Yes, he helps. But you can't ignore the significant contributions of Massett, Herrera, and Rhodes, even Fisher and Burton. In 2007, the Reds pen was killed by Coffey and Stanton in particular, but also Santos, Gosling, and Saarloos.

.

Just entirely disagree, as I said in the other "trade Cordero" thread. The Reds do not have a sufficiently dominant bullpen to man the late innings with Massett as closer and with no Coco and no Weathers on the team.

You can't take contributing middle relievers, or guys who primarily get lefties out, and make them your everyday seventh and eighth inning pitchers.

All of these "trade Cordero" threads are unrealistic because they do not bring back the bullpen guys to re-stock. Provide me with a cheaper, effective closer to replace Cordero and it's worth considering. Or, if Massett closes, provide me with a proven set up man who can get righties out.

IMO the Reds bullpen is short even WITH Cordero. The late innings are now Coco, Massett, and Rhodes. I think they need a fourth late inning guy, right handed. Maybe, possibly, Burton if he returns to form, or someone from the outside.

I watched the Reds with Myers-Dibble-Charlton. I watched them with Brantley and Mike Jackson. I watched Graves-Williamson in their big year. You don't win by defaulting on those positions.

[Jpup]

The Reds have very few good players. Cordero is one of them. Why trade him?

[nate]

Originally Posted by Jpup

The Reds have very few good players. Cordero is one of them. Why trade him?

If trading him results in a net improvement of the Reds, why not?

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Just entirely disagree, as I said in the other "trade Cordero" thread. The Reds do not have a sufficiently dominant bullpen to man the late innings with Massett as closer and with no Coco and no Weathers on the team.

This is the part of RMR's post that you quoted:

The Reds didn't have problems with blown saves before Cordero; they had trouble getting through the 7th and 8th innings so that David Weathers could save the game.

This is a much more talented bullpen than it ever was in the few years prior to Cordero. Yes, he helps. But you can't ignore the significant contributions of Massett, Herrera, and Rhodes, even Fisher and Burton. In 2007, the Reds pen was killed by Coffey and Stanton in particular, but also Santos, Gosling, and Saarloos.

So, in the part you quoted, RMR threw out that the 7th and 8th inning was the problem in '07 and that the bullpen is in better shape now than it was at that time. So which of those do you disagree with again?

Originally Posted by Kc61

I watched the Reds with Myers-Dibble-Charlton. I watched them with Brantley and Mike Jackson. I watched Graves-Williamson in their big year. You don't win by defaulting on those positions.

I don't think anyone is saying that the bullpen isn't an area to pay attention to. The problem that most people have is how much of the payroll is being spent on the bullpen and Cordero is exhibit A. By the way, I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that the bullpen didn't take up more than a quarter of the payroll when those players (Myers, Dibble, Charlton, Brantley, Mike Jackson, Graves, Williamson) were with the Reds.

[RedsManRick]

Exactly dan. Taking the Nasty Boys as a case in point, all of those guys were pretty cheap. Myers, 27, was in his first year of arbitration. Charlton, 27 and Dibble 26, were both pre-arb.

I'm not saying we can just give Cordero away and the bullpen won't be worse off. I am saying that unless the Reds decide to spent $40M more than they are spending now, Cordero is a very inefficient use of salary given the value he provides. The guy provides approximately 2% of our overall production (<5% of our IP) and makes 15% of our payroll.

It shouldn't cost you 8 figures to sign a 3 ERA reliever. The Reds are paying for the closer tag and they really cannot afford to do that. The 1990 Reds are a great example, because they built a bullpen out of talented arms that they either developed or traded for while those players were young and cheap.

This isn't about how important a bullpen is on a winning team. It's about how much of your payroll you need to use to get it.

[Topcat]

Originally Posted by Jpup

The Reds have very few good players. Cordero is one of them. Why trade him?

In a minute I trade Cordero for Upton, never would happen but dang some fool put it in print thus I had to comment

[Jpup]

Originally Posted by nate

If trading him results in a net improvement of the Reds, why not?

Because it won't. I don't trust Jocketty to make a trade to improve the Reds.

[nate]

Originally Posted by Jpup

Because it won't. I don't trust Jocketty to make a trade to improve the Reds.

I see.

So...we should start drinking early then?

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

The Reds didn't have problems with blown saves before Cordero; they had trouble getting through the 7th and 8th innings so that David Weathers could save the game.

This is a much more talented bullpen than it ever was in the few years prior to Cordero. Yes, he helps. But you can't ignore the significant contributions of Massett, Herrera, and Rhodes, even Fisher and Burton. In 2007, the Reds pen was killed by Coffey and Stanton in particular, but also Santos, Gosling, and Saarloos.

Now that the Reds have decide to build a bullpen around talented arms, even if they're young and unproven, instead of a collection of failed starters, the closer is getting more opportunities.

Again, I like Cordero more than Weathers, to be sure. But he does not provide $10M more in production than other effective options. Trading Cordero would not commit us to a horrible bullpen.

I would love to see Cordero's salary gone. Don't the Reds have some considerations coming up at the end of next year with Harang and Arroyo? I don't recall the terms of their contracts, but, aren't those due to be up at the end of next year making it a major financial consideration for the Reds pitching talent and financially wise?

I just looked it up. I guess I was wrong.

Harang will earn $11 million in 2009 and $12.5 million in 2010. There is also a $12.75 million club option for 2011 that carries a $2 million buyout. The option year base salary can increase to $13 million if the right-hander works 210 innings in 2010. If he's traded, the option becomes mutual for $14 million with a $2.5 million buyout.

Arroyo, will make to $9.5 million in 2009 and $11 million in 2010 with an $11 million club option for 2011 that can climb to $13 million if he reaches incentives. The option carries a $2 million buyout.

[nate]

Originally Posted by Spring~Fields

I would love to see Cordero's salary gone. Don't the Reds have some considerations coming up at the end of next year with Harang and Arroyo? I don't recall the terms of their contracts, but, aren't those due to be up at the end of next year making it a major financial consideration for the Reds pitching talent and financially wise?

Aaron Harang rhp
4 years/$36.5M (2007-10), plus 2011 club option

• 4 years/$36.5M (2007-10), plus 2011 club option
  • re-signed by Cincinnati 2/07 (avoided arbitration, $5.5M-$4.25M)
  • 07:$4.25M, 08:$6.75M, 09:$11M, 10:$12.5M, 11:$12.75M ($2M buyout)
  • 2011 option increases to $13M with 210 IP in 2010
  • if traded, 2011 option becomes mutual option at $14M ($2.5M buyout)
• 1 year/$2.35M (2006)
  • re-signed by Cincinnati 1/06 (avoided arbitration)
• 1 year/$0.44M (2005)
• 1 year/$0.36M (2004)
• agents: Levinson brothers
• ML service: 6.061

Bronson Arroyo rhp
2 years/$25M (2009-10), plus 2011 club option

• 2 years/$25M (2009-10), plus 2011 club option
  • signed extension with Cincinnati 2/07
  • $2.5M signing bonus (paid 2008)
  • 09:$9.5M, 10:$11M, 11:$11M club option ($2M buyout)
  • 2011 option may increase to $13M based on IP
  • agreed to give up 2008 performance bonuses as part of deal
• 3 years/$11.25M (2006-08)
  • re-signed by Boston 1/06 (avoided arbitration, $4.2M-$2.95M)
  • $0.75M signing bonus
  • 06:$2.75M, 07:$3.8M, 08:$3.95M
  • $0.325M performance bonus with 210 IP in 2008
  • acquired by Cincinnati in trade from Boston 3/06, with Red Sox paying $1.5M to Reds
• 1 year/$1.85M (2005)
  • re-signed by Boston 1/05 (avoided arbitration)
• 1 year/$0.3325M (2004)
• agent: Gregg Clifton, Terry Bross, Gaylord Sports Management
• ML service: 6.150

[jojo]

Harang is still a solid starting pitcher. He's a tick above average.

His contract per se isn't the numbers that are scary. Here's the ones that are more worrisome to me:

231, 184, 162.......