Would you...Homer Bailey for Wil Myers?

[Benihana]

I've found that usually when there is roughly a 50/50 split on a RZ trade poll, it usually means the trade is of reasonable value to both sides, or in other words a relatively fair trade.

This would be somewhat akin to the Brett Lawrie for Shaun Marcum trade.

[mth123]

I think fans need some perspective on Bailey. His status was diminished among many because he was promoted before he was ready because the Reds didn't really have anybody else. Then, in late 2009 when he was starting to put it together, he was ridden too hard by Dusty and Dick Pole to a 60+ inning increase over anything he'd done up to that point. The next two seasons he struggled with arm issues as happens frequently when too many innings are forced on a kid age 23 or less.

Now he's come out the other side and established himself as a solid mid-rotation starter with potential for more at age 26. That's the same age as a guy who is viewed as a future ace based on one season in the big leagues that is pretty darned similar. The difference being that the other guy spent 5 years building his legend against inferior competition in Japan while Bailey lost his luster while taking his lumps and suffering abuse at the hands of the Reds management. If he ends up a mid-roation starter in 2013 for around $4 to $5 Million, that seems way more valuable than anything they could get for him. Given what he is and what he could be, I wouldn't deal him for some one who isn't established. Myers might be the next Eric Hosmer or Devn Mesoraco and put up a sub .700 OPS in 2013. Dealing Bailey for that seems pretty darned risky.

If the Reds were a rebuilding team, its a move I'd make, but I don't deal the number three starter from a team meant to contend for a WS title for a question mark. If Bailey is the biggest trade piece on hand (I don't think the Reds have any intention of dealing him), they need to make it count and get somebody with a history of solid production for him. I like Myers a lot, but he's not that guy. I'd happily talk about a package involving Leake, Corcino and Heisey for Myers, but not Bailey.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by MikeS21

No. Once you get pitching you hang on to it. Don't believe the garbage that says:"In order to get talent you have to give up talent." That is for teams who who can't seem to make decent trades.

How much legitimate talent has been acquired by teams who leave us scratching our head because they didn't give up anything?

It happens, but it's usually because the team getting the talent is also picking up payroll the other team wants to shed. Outright giveaways of cheap top-shelf talent doesn't happen that often. Prospects and money are just different forms of baseball currency.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by dunner13

Doug, serious question not trying to argue. Last year was Baileys first year with an ERA under 4.5ish, looking at his stats what tells you that 12 wasnt just everything going his way and that 2011 isn't really the real Bailey? His WHIP, HR/9 , SO/9 were all pretty much the same and he still gives up about a hit per inning. If he can keep his ERA in the mid 3's then your right he is more then a #3 but I'm just not convinced that he can.

His FIP and XFIP have been better than his ERA for a while now, in 2012 the ERA finally caught up with his peripherals.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

His FIP and XFIP have been better than his ERA for a while now, in 2012 the ERA finally caught up with his peripherals.

Some guys consistently outperform their xFIP. Could Bailey be someone who has the opposite going on?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Some guys consistently outperform their xFIP. Could Bailey be someone who has the opposite going on?

Well, given that he outperformed it this year, probably not. There is of course a chance he regresses back to the opposite guy, but there is not really a reason to expect him to.

[bellhead]

Originally Posted by cinreds21

I see what you're saying, but I don't think every team has a true ace. Colorado, San Diego and Houston are examples. In baseball, there are really only 10-15 true aces.

Look where those 3 teams have been over the last 5 years?

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by mth123

If the Reds were a rebuilding team, its a move I'd make, but I don't deal the number three starter from a team meant to contend for a WS title for a question mark. .

Yep, that's exactly why I voted no.

Although I think it creates more question marks.

You trade Homer in that deal, it's a domino effect.
-- Rookie Myers in LF (probable growing pains)
-- Forced to put Chapman in rotation (question mark, plus he's not going to give you 200 IP like Homer can potentially do)
-- Chapman to the rotation means the Reds have to get a closer.. Certianly possible but another question mark.


I think the Reds are not going to get a CF this winter. It will be Stubbs until Billy H comes up. Then we have Fraizer as a question mark as well (he's not likely to OPS 900 again, I hope he can OPS 825, but is that realistic?)
I just remember how much the offense struggled in the beginning of 2012 when Rolen was hurt and Ludwick was stuggling.. I'd really like more proven production in LF than Myers. Even though Myers is highly touted, can we live with his growing pains and contend? If the Royals are willing to take minor leaguers, I'm more interested.. but if I'm trading Homer, I want a player in return that's as sure of a bet to be productive. Homer looks like about as sure of a thing as you're going to get from a pitcher at this point, and he does give the team great bang for the buck.

[Vottomatic]

Reds tied for third best e.r.a. in mlb. Dominant starting rotation and bullpen. Seems strange that they are considering tinkering with it.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

Reds tied for third best e.r.a. in mlb. Dominant starting rotation and bullpen. Seems strange that they are considering tinkering with it.

In virtually any sport, if you're not adjusting, then you're not doing it right.

[AtomicDumpling]

Report on Rotoworld says the Royals are asking the Rays for James Shields for Wil Myers. They have asked the Red Sox for Jon Lester. Of course these are rumors. If this is true then the Royals would likely not accept a Myers for Homer Bailey trade offer.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Report on Rotoworld says the Royals are asking the Rays for James Shields for Wil Myers. They have asked the Red Sox for Jon Lester. Of course these are rumors. If this is true then the Royals would likely not accept a Myers for Homer Bailey trade offer.

Not sure about the last sentence- that's what the Royals are asking for, not what they have received. Bailey significantly outpitched Lester in 2012 and has significantly less money due to him over the next two years (Shields and Lester both have >$20MM due in next two years). Bailey is also five years younger than Shields and two years younger than Lester, so it is not unreasonable to expect him to be on an opposite trajectory.

I'd offer Leake and Cingrani and see if the Royals counter by asking for Bailey. Not saying I'd do it, but it would certainly be an interesting conversation.

[cincrazy]

Homer has frustrated the crap out of me. But we've been patient with him, and enjoyed the fruits of that patience last season. He's finally starting to emerge as a reliable, good starter. Those are hard to find, whether he will ever be defined as an "ace" or not. Give me the pitching every time. We trade Bailey, and there's a HUGE hole in the rotation that I doubt we can fill.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by Benihana

Not sure about the last sentence- that's what the Royals are asking for, not what they have received. Bailey significantly outpitched Lester in 2012 and has significantly less money due to him over the next two years (Shields and Lester both have >$20MM due in next two years). Bailey is also five years younger than Shields and two years younger than Lester, so it is not unreasonable to expect him to be on an opposite trajectory.

I'd offer Leake and Cingrani and see if the Royals counter by asking for Bailey. Not saying I'd do it, but it would certainly be an interesting conversation.

Good reasoning. And I agree. Bailey is younger and cheaper than both Shields and Lester. And he posted better numbers than Lester while pitching in GABP.

I'd consider it, but not sure I'd do it, Bailey straight up for Myers. Hmmm. I'd rather trade Leake and one of Corcino/Cingrani.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Yep, that's exactly why I voted no.

Although I think it creates more question marks.

You trade Homer in that deal, it's a domino effect.
-- Rookie Myers in LF (probable growing pains)
-- Forced to put Chapman in rotation (question mark, plus he's not going to give you 200 IP like Homer can potentially do)
-- Chapman to the rotation means the Reds have to get a closer.. Certianly possible but another question mark.


I think the Reds are not going to get a CF this winter. It will be Stubbs until Billy H comes up. Then we have Fraizer as a question mark as well (he's not likely to OPS 900 again, I hope he can OPS 825, but is that realistic?)
I just remember how much the offense struggled in the beginning of 2012 when Rolen was hurt and Ludwick was stuggling.. I'd really like more proven production in LF than Myers. Even though Myers is highly touted, can we live with his growing pains and contend? If the Royals are willing to take minor leaguers, I'm more interested.. but if I'm trading Homer, I want a player in return that's as sure of a bet to be productive. Homer looks like about as sure of a thing as you're going to get from a pitcher at this point, and he does give the team great bang for the buck.

I keep posting similar remarks, but I like the way you state it. I agree with the dilemma you cite with growing pains with Myers, Chapman's durability as a starter, and then having to find a closer to replace him in the bullpen.