Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo and Jason Donald for Drew Stubbs and Didi Gregorious

[corkedbat]

This item from MLBTR says that Atlanta and the Mariners both made "aggressive" last minute offers to the Tribe to try and snake Choo away from the Reds. Probably speaks to the value that Gregorious had.

Also, lower in the piece, it states the Phils may consider moving a LH relieve. Any interest in Antonio Bastardo or Raul Valdes?

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/1...-phillies.html

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Brutus

It's still awfully inconsistent, Doug. You are dismissing Cozart because of his on-base percentage but last night fretting the loss of Gregorius because his defense, in the bigger picture, makes him valuable in spite of his weak bat. So shouldn't you be applying the same thinking to Cozart's 3 WAR?

I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Brutus

You can develop more prospects. You can go out and sign organizational depth that will be far more ready to step in than Gregorius. Heck, Jason Donald will be able to do what Gregorius could do right now.

I know we can. That's the point I was bringing up. We need to do it sooner rather than later. Trading Didi and moving Hamilton off of short has left the SS cupboard BARE! Sure we can address it with the draft, but that won't help us soon enough. And sure, Donald could come in and do what Didi could...with the bat. My concern is with the leather. That's where we have the shortage. We don't even have a glove only guy in the minors for that slot.

And while Donald and Hannahan can cover SS for a short period of time, it's not their real position and the defense takes a major blow. We can cover a poor bat in the lineup. But a hack at short with the glove is a whole different thing.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Superdude

I see the argument, but it seems a little greedy calling for competent minor league back ups at every position. If the need arises for a different long term option for whatever reason., I'm assuming that'll get addressed just like anything else.

Just to be clear, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm calling for competent DEFENDERS at defense-first positions at SOME of the minor league levels. If we had a viable SS defender at AA. I could live with it. But I think we have to go all the way down to A ball or even rookie ball to find a real shortstop defensively. Sure, I'd love a whole-package kind of SS at every level. But that's not going to happen of course. But at least 1 glove-first guy at either AAA or AA is not too much to expect IMO. (again, I'm talking about SS, CF, C for the most part)

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Just to be clear, that's not what I'm calling for. I'm calling for competent DEFENDERS at defense-first positions at SOME of the minor league levels. If we had a viable SS defender at AA. I could live with it. But I think we have to go all the way down to A ball or even rookie ball to find a real shortstop defensively. Sure, I'd love a whole-package kind of SS at every level. But that's not going to happen of course. But at least 1 glove-first guy at either AAA or AA is not too much to expect IMO. (again, I'm talking about SS, CF, C for the most part)

Jocketty seems to think Donald is a competent backup middle infielder.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I think Gregorius has the potential to have both a better bat and better defense than Cozart. My issue isn't so much that we don't have Gregorius and do have Cozart, it is that we have every egg in the basket with Cozart's name on it and I truly don't think he is all that good or a safe bet moving forward. We could do worse of course. But every egg we have is in his basket for several years to come and he is a 27 year old with a pretty crappy bat.

I think it ultimately came down to the fact that Cozart is a proven commodity that's likely to be a solid player next year and going forward. Didi is an unknown, and while he may be better down the road, I feel much better about only Cozart than only Didi right now.

[Brutus]

I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

Add in the phrase "if he stays healthy" to your last sentence. If he doesn't...we have ZERO fallback.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

That's a great question. I'm not totally 100% confident in Cozart for the next five years either, but it comes down to assuming a little risk for the sake of adding a big bat to the lineup.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Jocketty seems to think Donald is a competent backup middle infielder.

He is, and I agree that he is. But a back-up middle infielder is not the same as a regular shortstop for an extended period of time. 2b is Donald's natural position. He's considerably worse at short. As is Hannahan (although 3b is his natural slot).

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I'm honestly curious... what's really being debated here? Should the Reds not have acquired Choo just because now they don't have a 23-year old, unproven backup to Cozart?

I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have acquired Choo. Or even traded a shortstop. Just that there is some major risk involved in this trade because it leaves us DESPERATELY shorthanded at shortstop if an injury occurs. It also significantly reduces our outfield defense. (yes, there's also a significant uptick in offense...but those other 2 risks are still very real and very concerning)

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Add in the phrase "if he stays healthy" to your last sentence. If he doesn't...we have ZERO fallback.

I renew my question, should they not have done the deal for that reason alone? If you agree they still should have, then I'm really not sure what the fuss is about.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I'd rather have a 27 year old with a so-called "crappy bat" as the devil I know than a 23 year old with a "crappy bat" as the devil I don't know.

Cozart last year was an above average shortstop. I don't know why that should be fretted. The Reds should have 3-4 years to develop someone else to step in.

I'd rather have the other guy, but that isn't the point. The point is that Cozart probably isn't going to get better and may get worse, and if he does get worse, there is literally no one to replace him. Or if he gets hurt.

WAR says Cozart was an above-average shortstop last year. Not sure I fully buy into that. Was he average? Yeah, I could buy into that. Not sure I buy into anything more than that.

I am basically hinging on this, if Cozart takes even a slight step backwards in his game, I don't see him as "starting material", but the Reds don't have a single option behind him to replace him. I am not saying he will. I am saying he could. And if he does, the Reds have no options but to play him. It is like Stubbs all over again. You must play a crappy option because you don't have another one. Except that with how it looks right now, if that step backward does come this year, you may be stuck with that for years. It is a concern for me.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

I don't think anybody is saying we shouldn't have acquired Choo. Or even traded a shortstop. Just that there is some major risk involved in this trade because it leaves us DESPERATELY shorthanded at shortstop if an injury occurs. It also significantly reduces our outfield defense. (yes, there's also a significant uptick in offense...but those other 2 risks are still very real and very concerning)

There's risk to every trade. And I truly get the impression Doug is saying the trade shouldn't be made, or else he's being awfully argumentative for a point that really doesn't make much difference.

If the position is there's risk, well what trade doesn't have risk involved?