Centerfield 2013

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Leake has already reached the level of a #3 starter. He was 29th in the NL in ERA+ in 2011, 36th in 2012, and would have ranked 36th in 2010 if he had enough innings to qualify. That puts him squarely in the ranks of #3 starters in the NL already and he hasn't even turned 25 yet. I don't think he's ever going to be a guy who can put up a monster 150 ERA+ season (Cy Young contender), but I think he can become a guy who is consistently over 100 ERA+ (quality #3 starter) with the occasional 120+ ERA season (quality #2, borderline #1).

As far as trading value to get value, Leake's value is at an all-time low. He's the last guy I would want to trade right now. I'd rather trade someone who is likely to bring a better return. Trading Leake right now doesn't bring much in return, and IMO he is way too good to be used as a throw in (as many of the proposed trades on RZ seem to do). If I were the Reds, I'd be busting my hump right now to sign him to a contract extension while his value is depressed.

I agree, Steve. And I would add that his hitting has provided hidden value. While it's not a skill you select pitchers for, the runs produced (or not produced) by pitchers at the plate and on the bases still count in the wins and loss columns. In his ~2.5 years worth of starts, Leake has produced 2.0 fWAR offensively.

Now, looking at his BABIP and his K:BB, it's quite possible (probably likely) that those numbers are a fluke and that he'll hit like a normal pitcher moving forward. But it should at least be part of the conversation.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Benihana

1. No, I'm not- 6 starters is fine, 8 is hoarding.
2. Don't disagree, all the more reason to trade him in the right deal if a team really believes he can be.
3. See #2
4. No, he didn't bomb in ST last year at all. He was moved to the 'pen because of injuries there.
5. So trade Corcino and/or Cingrani. And I disagree- Cingrani DOES look to be ready at some point this year, as he already pitched and pitched well with the big club in September. Corcino could be ready at some point this year as well. Why hang onto three guys for one potential vacancy in the rotation in 2014?!

I'm not trading them for the sake of getting rid of them, but I'm advocating being proactive to help source an impact OF which we desperately need (much more than we need an 8th starter for insurance).

The difference in our points of view is that you're seeing 8 starters...I'm seeing 5 1/2. Corcino/Cingrani aren't ready IMO. Not even close (in regards to STARTING...not bullpen work. I agree that Cingrani looked fine in the pen. But that's a whole different animal than starting in the bigs.).

As for Chapman bombing...I was referring to his first stint as a starter down in Louisville. He was pretty bad. So much so that they moved him to the bullpen. 2012 spring...if we get THAT Chapman, I'll do backflips...or forward rolls. :O)

And to be clear, I've got no problem trading either of the C's...but I don't see a NEED to trade either of them. If another team approaches us with a excellent offer that's a solid win for us...fine. Otherwise I keep the kids.

[Rojo]

Originally Posted by osuceltic

Having said all that, he's still a huge risk and I'm afraid the Sox will expect compensation commensurate with the MVP candidate Ellsbury and not the injury-prone, mostly average Ellsbury.

It's a tough call to make from the cheap seats. Were I WJ, this is where I'd shake the grapevine to learn more about his health, temperment, expectations and, frankly, what 2011 was all about.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

And to be clear, I've got no problem trading either of the C's...but I don't see a NEED to trade either of them. If another team approaches us with a excellent offer that's a solid win for us...fine. Otherwise I keep the kids.

This is the mentality I don't understand - why not be proactive and not reactive? The latter seems very Mike Brown, whereas the best GMs (Beane, Friedman, Daniels, etc.) seem to employ the former strategy.

We don't NEED to trade anyone. But we can afford and should look to trade one or more of them to fill another need- assuming the return MAKES SENSE.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

As Sir_Charles brought up with Stubbs having a potential bounce-back season, the same holds true for Leake IMO.

I really don't get why people are so quick to give up on him. He is just one year removed from posting a 3.86 ERA with a 1.175 WHIP and has an elite bat for his position. Yes, his 2012 was lackluster and uninspiring, but this is a kid who has posted three straight seasons of league average-ish pitching before his 25th birthday, all without the benefit of being able to hone his skills in the minor leagues. Do you have any idea how incredibly rare that is?

I could definitely see him taking a big step forward in 2013 much like Homer Bailey did in 2012.

Agreed. Yes Mike's numbers went down last year. But good lord, have people so quickly forgotten that he's 3 years removed from playing college ball? This is the same guy who put up Strasberg-like numbers (link) his final year in college. He's producing like a middle of the road starter in the majors at 25 years old. I see LOADS of upside with Leake. Just because he's not a power pitcher doesn't limit his odds of success. IMO, working with Hanigan instead of Mesoraco will do wonders for Leake. When he gets the ball up in the zone, flyballs turn into HR's. When he doesn't, they're ground outs. I think people overlook his dominating performances to easily.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Leake has already reached the level of a #3 starter. He was 29th in the NL in ERA+ in 2011, 36th in 2012, and would have ranked 36th in 2010 if he had enough innings to qualify. That puts him squarely in the ranks of #3 starters in the NL already and he hasn't even turned 25 yet. I don't think he's ever going to be a guy who can put up a monster 150 ERA+ season (Cy Young contender), but I think he can become a guy who is consistently over 100 ERA+ (quality #3 starter) with the occasional 120+ ERA season (quality #2, borderline #1).

As far as trading value to get value, Leake's value is at an all-time low. He's the last guy I would want to trade right now. I'd rather trade someone who is likely to bring a better return. Trading Leake right now doesn't bring much in return, and IMO he is way too good to be used as a throw in (as many of the proposed trades on RZ seem to do). If I were the Reds, I'd be busting my hump right now to sign him to a contract extension while his value is depressed.

I don't see Leake as a #3 at this point. Good #4 maybe. His upside could be a #3. Look at the Reds main competition in the NL, and who they have as #3 and #4 starters:

Giants: Lincecum & Vogelsong
Nats: Haren & Zimermann
Phillies: Halladay & Kendrick
Braves: Beachey & Minor
Cards: Lohse & Lynn/Garcia

You could argue that Leake is worse than almost all of them. I am fine not trading him this offseason, especially if people aren't ascribing much value to him.

I will say, however, that barring injury I don't envision a scenario where he is one of the three best SP on the Reds- certainly not in the next two years especially. Nor would he likely be on any of the teams listed above.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Benihana

This is the mentality I don't understand - why not be proactive and not reactive? The latter seems very Mike Brown, whereas the best GMs (Beane, Friedman, Daniels, etc.) seem to employ the former strategy.

We don't NEED to trade anyone. But we can afford and should look to trade one or more of them to fill another need- assuming the return MAKES SENSE.

Because I don't see the point in looking to trade these guys when we have no idea what Aroldis is going to do as a starter. We haven't done anything in regards to extending Latos/Bailey. We have no idea if Bronson's open to returning for a smaller contract. Lots of reasons that I'd prefer to maintain the status quo for now. If we need to make changes later on as our demands dictate...fine. But the only way we're getting a top-notch CF'er is by dealing multiple pitchers, overpaying, or taking on a contract that prohibits us from extending more valuable pieces.

The only "hole" I'm seeing in our club right now is LF. Period. Once we sign Ludwick, I see zero holes. Possibly a lefty for the pen...but it's not really that important. We've won with Stubbs/Heisey in center. I see no reason we can't continue to win with them. Especially if Billy Hamilton turns out to be what we all hope for. That means we need a short-term solution...I think Stubbs/Heisey more than fill that bill.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by Benihana

Look at the Reds main competition in the NL, and who they have as #3 and #4 starters:

Giants: Lincecum & Vogelsong
Nats: Haren & Zimermann
Phillies: Halladay & Kendrick
Braves: Beachey & Minor
Cards: Lohse & Lynn/Garcia

You could argue that Leake is worse than almost all of them. I am fine not trading him this offseason, especially if people aren't ascribing much value to him.

Halladay is the Phillies #3 starter?

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by RedEye

Halladay is the Phillies #3 starter?

Sub in Hamels or Lee if you want

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Because I don't see the point in looking to trade these guys when we have no idea what Aroldis is going to do as a starter. We haven't done anything in regards to extending Latos/Bailey. We have no idea if Bronson's open to returning for a smaller contract. Lots of reasons that I'd prefer to maintain the status quo for now. If we need to make changes later on as our demands dictate...fine. But the only way we're getting a top-notch CF'er is by dealing multiple pitchers, overpaying, or taking on a contract that prohibits us from extending more valuable pieces.

The only "hole" I'm seeing in our club right now is LF. Period. Once we sign Ludwick, I see zero holes. Possibly a lefty for the pen...but it's not really that important. We've won with Stubbs/Heisey in center. I see no reason we can't continue to win with them. Especially if Billy Hamilton turns out to be what we all hope for. That means we need a short-term solution...I think Stubbs/Heisey more than fill that bill.

So you didn't think last year's team was short on offense?

And that was with Ludwick and Frazier both significantly outperforming their expectations- which most reasonable people expect some kind of regression.

This team has holes in the OF. With or without Ludwick, they need more offense.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Benihana

So you didn't think last year's team was short on offense?

And that was with Ludwick and Frazier both significantly outperforming their expectations- which most reasonable people expect some kind of regression.

This team has holes in the OF. With or without Ludwick, they need more offense.

No I didn't. Especially when you consider that Votto missed considerable time, Ludwick & Rolen struggled mightily for extended periods in the first half, and Stubbs had his worst season to date. All that, and guess what, we STILL had an offense that scored runs at a rate right in the middle of the NL. We STILL had the 4th best run differential in the NL. And we STILL won 97 games, 1 win off the NL lead. I'd say our offense was fine. Could it improve? Certainly....but heck, so could the pitching. A +81 run differential and 97 wins tell me that they don't "need" more offense.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

No I didn't. Especially when you consider that Votto missed considerable time, Ludwick & Rolen struggled mightily for extended periods in the first half, and Stubbs had his worst season to date. All that, and guess what, we STILL had an offense that scored runs at a rate right in the middle of the NL. We STILL had the 4th best run differential in the NL. And we STILL won 97 games, 1 win off the NL lead. I'd say our offense was fine. Could it improve? Certainly....but heck, so could the pitching. A +81 run differential and 97 wins tell me that they don't "need" more offense.

For the Reds to rest on their laurels would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

They won 97 games but played the Cubs and Astros about 36 times. They were fortunate to play in a division with two of the weakest teams in baseball, and the Reds took full advantage.

The Reds also had an amazing steak of good luck with the health of their starting pitching. And their closer was Hall of Fame quality, at least for one year. Next season they may have to rely more on offense.

With the Reds' OBP needs and failures against RHP, I just can't see the Stubbs/Heisey tandem in CF again.

How the Reds go about fixing it is a good question, there are alternatives, but sitting on their hands to me isn't a good option.

[M2]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

I'd say our offense was fine. Could it improve? Certainly....but heck, so could the pitching. A +81 run differential and 97 wins tell me that they don't "need" more offense.

Last year was, arguably, the best Reds pitching team most of us have ever seen. I'm not sure it gets much better than that. The run differential and wins total was a result of run prevention. The offense was slightly below average.

And the most glaring hole for the offense was production from the leadoff hitters (if you want to look at it from a lineup perspective) and CF (if you want to look at it from a positional perspective). Getting a CF who can hit at the top of the lineup fills both holes. It's pretty imperative that Walt get this done.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by M2

Last year was, arguably, the best Reds pitching team most of us have ever seen. I'm not sure it gets much better than that. The run differential and wins total was a result of run prevention. The offense was slightly below average.

And the most glaring hole for the offense was production from the leadoff hitters (if you want to look at it from a lineup perspective) and CF (if you want to look at it from a positional perspective). Getting a CF who can hit at the top of the lineup fills both holes. It's pretty imperative that Walt get this done.

I don't disagree with that (except to say that it wasn't just a result of run prevention...this team DID score their fair share of runs). But, and this is a big but, with Hamilton on the way possibly, we're looking at a short term solution. My problem with these trade scenarios is that we're causing a long term problem (trading away valuable arms) to fix a short term problem (one year or even a partial year of a CF'er).

The leadoff situation can be cured by planting Phillips there IMO.

The CF situation is certainly cause for concern, but I think Stubbs bounces back some. And if he's hitting lower in the order, I think he'll be fine.

As for an improved offense...get Votto back full-time, give Frazier a full-time gig, another year of experience for Cozart, Cairo/Valdez gone from the bench, and ANY production out of Mesoraco...and I foresee improvement without any changes. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve. I'm saying that we're in the drivers seat in terms of any deals we look into because we're not forced into a situation of HAVING to make a deal.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Kc61

For the Reds to rest on their laurels would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

They won 97 games but played the Cubs and Astros about 36 times. They were fortunate to play in a division with two of the weakest teams in baseball, and the Reds took full advantage.

The Reds also had an amazing steak of good luck with the health of their starting pitching. And their closer was Hall of Fame quality, at least for one year. Next season they may have to rely more on offense.

Everyone else in our division played the Cubs and Astros, so that's no advantage over anyone else. And as fun as Chapman was to watch, his save percentage wasn't anything Broxton can't at least come close to next season. Terrible mistake is an overstatement IMO.