Would You Be On Board for Shin-Soo Choo?

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Yep, Span > Choo for one year.
But Washington traded for 2 or 3 years of Span, as opposed to one year of Choo.
Choo is pending arb and is going to be paid well in this last year.
Historically, corner OF in the last year of their contract just don't command a starter like Leake, a solid pitching prospect like Cingrani, Hiesey, and a PTBL.

Look at what St louis gave up for one year of Holliday a couple years ago


Holliday > Choo and the Cardinals gave up much less for one year of him


I guess I see pitchers like Leake more scarce than acceptable OFers.. Although I do admit that Choo is an elite OF.

Holliday was traded to the Cards in July 2009. He was traded as a two month rental. Yet the A's got Brett Wallace, the best offensive player in the Cards system at the time in return.

In 2012 the Reds failed to score 700 runs for the first time in a decade. The team's lead off hitters hit .208/.254/.327. The team's OPS v. righty pitching was .710, below league average of .720.

Choo is perfect to help fix these problems and I, for one, would sacrifice Mike Leake and more to get him.

This is all hypothetical, I doubt the Reds will go for Choo. Probably they'll sign Ludwick and get a Coco Crisp type for CF. That would be fine with me.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Leake for Choo is a "loss" on the value front straight up in my opinion, due to the years and money. However, it makes the Reds a markedly better team in 2012, assuming his defensive performance (as measured by UZR) was an abberation. If there's a reasonable chance he can be resigned/extended as some point prior to hitting the FA market, I'd be game. If it were just a 1 year rental, I'd be more inclined to go the prospect route.

I would certainly not, however, trade Leake and Cigrani and more for Choo unless he was signing an extension the day he landed in Cincinnati.

This post sums up my feelings exactly. A deal built around Corcino/Heisey would seem fair.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Holliday was traded to the Cards in July 2009. He was traded as a two month rental. Yet the A's got Brett Wallace, the best offensive player in the Cards system at the time in return.

I did a look up him.. He's still young, but about a 750 OPS 3b.. doesn't seem that special, even though he was the best position player in the Cards system.

I think we can tweak the offense without giving up Leake. It's kind of neat the Reds have so much deep pitching though.. If the team had a Leake type pitcher in 2002, he'd be viewed as a savior and be totally untouchable..

[cincinnati chili]

Cingrani to me is the real wild card here. Maybe I missed it back in September, but here's a John Sickels write-up on him with a nice tip of the cap to dougdirt. If the Reds scouts (whose ability to evaluate pitching I am trusting more and more) see Cingrani as a top-to-middle of rotation starter, then I don't do the deal. Choo is turning 30, and there are probably solid options out there with less of a cost. I'll say 'yes' to the question, however, because I don't think most objective observers think Cingrani will be that good.

About the 1-year "rental" thing. One question to ask in evaluating this deal is whether you think Choo will be worthy of a being offered arbitration by the Reds after the 2013 season. If so, the deal is much more palatable, as the Reds would end up with two high draft picks as compensation. And now that this organization is no longer what it was 10 years ago when it couldn't identify amateur talent, and at lease one of those draft picks will probably amount to something good, thus minimizing the sting of losing Leake and Cingrani if one or both of them blossoms into a great pitcher.

[membengal]

Leake OR Cingrani, but not both, in any deal for a player like Choo (who I value very highly).

I would prefer to hang onto Cingrani myself, but I admit to holding a candle for him. He is my current prospect crush.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by membengal

Leake OR Cingrani, but not both, in any deal for a player like Choo (who I value very highly).

I would prefer to hang onto Cingrani myself, but I admit to holding a candle for him. He is my current prospect crush.

I think Choo would be a great target, but as a one year rental, the cost can't be too much. Corcino/Heisey should be a good start. If it takes more, a lesser prospect could be added. Lamarre, Soto, or some one like that.

The Reds are trying to win in 2013. I wouldn't deal guys who can contribute in 2013. Leake may appear to be the odd man out in the rotation, but he's going to be needed and will probably be integral to the team's success. Cingrani is the only real lefty hope in the organization and would be a big boost to the pen at some point in 2013. Get what's needed for other guys. Corcino is a fairly highly regarded arm. For a one year rental he and a useful outfielder for the mix like Heisey shoud be a pretty good basis for a deal.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by mth123

I think Choo would be a great target, but as a one year rental, the cost can't be too much. Corcino/Heisey should be a good start. If it takes more, a lesser prospect could be added. Lamarre, Soto, or some one like that.

The Reds are trying to win in 2013. I wouldn't deal guys who can contribute in 2013. Leake may appear to be the odd man out in the rotation, but he's going to be needed and will probably be integral to the team's success. Cingrani is the only real lefty hope in the organization and would be a big boost to the pen at some point in 2013. Get what's needed for other guys. Corcino is a fairly highly regarded arm. For a one year rental he and a useful outfielder for the mix like Heisey shoud be a pretty good basis for a deal.

Yeah, he's a one year rental. And I agree that Corcino/Heisey oughta be enough to obtain him.

But if I'm Walt, I'm asking Choo's agent behind the scenes what it would take to lock him up a few years.

I'd rather have Choo than Ludwick, frankly, because of age, and because Choo can do so many other things.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

Yeah, he's a one year rental. And I agree that Corcino/Heisey oughta be enough to obtain him.

But if I'm Walt, I'm asking Choo's agent behind the scenes what it would take to lock him up a few years.

I'd rather have Choo than Ludwick, frankly, because of age, and because Choo can do so many other things.

I'd ask about locking him up too, but he's not locked-up now and whether or not the Reds can lock him up shoudn't matter as to the cost to acquire him. The Indians are selling one year of Choo. If the Reds can extend him, that has nothing to do with the Indians.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by mth123

I'd ask about locking him up too, but he's not locked-up now and whether or not the Reds can lock him up shoudn't matter as to the cost to acquire him. The Indians are selling one year of Choo. If the Reds can extend him, that has nothing to do with the Indians.

Agreed. It should have nothing to do with what we trade them because there are no guarantees.

[The Voice of IH]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

Yeah, he's a one year rental. And I agree that Corcino/Heisey oughta be enough to obtain him.

But if I'm Walt, I'm asking Choo's agent behind the scenes what it would take to lock him up a few years.

I'd rather have Choo than Ludwick, frankly, because of age, and because Choo can do so many other things.

And because it's Boras, he's going to tell you 5/$65 Mil.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by cincinnati chili

About the 1-year "rental" thing. One question to ask in evaluating this deal is whether you think Choo will be worthy of a being offered arbitration by the Reds after the 2013 season. If so, the deal is much more palatable, as the Reds would end up with two high draft picks as compensation. And now that this organization is no longer what it was 10 years ago when it couldn't identify amateur talent, and at lease one of those draft picks will probably amount to something good, thus minimizing the sting of losing Leake and Cingrani if one or both of them blossoms into a great pitcher.

Genuine question: Why do we say "rental" anyway? It's not like we give them back to the original team when the time is up. Teams own those players, they just own them for a short time.

[cincinnati chili]

Originally Posted by vaticanplum

Genuine question: Why do we say "rental" anyway? It's not like we give them back to the original team when the time is up. Teams own those players, they just own them for a short time.

I see your point, but maybe the better analogy is to think of all players as being "rented," it's just that the Reds hold a longer lease on Mr. Votto than they would have on Mr. Choo.

Also the rent on Mr. Votto is more akin to Boardwalk (pre-hurricane of course) whereas the rent on Mr. Choo is more Illinois Avenue.