Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?

[savafan]

I heard Hal McCoy during the game yesterday saying that Wilson wants to return to the Reds next year, and McCoy is of the belief that you have to have at least one veteran in the rotation. He said that Wilson is a leader that the other pitchers look to.

Hal wasn't in favor of DanO's plan to wait until after the season for any contract talks, his reason being that Wilson's price would go up in free agency.

Wilson's been pretty decent this year, but part of me worries that he's Jimmy Haynes v. 2K4, and that signing him to a new contract would just come back to haunt this team.

Thoughts? Should the Reds try to bring Wilson back, or go with a young rotation next season?

[flyer85]

I say yes(caveat being the price) because I think the young guys do need a veteran pitcher to lead by example. Supposedly nobody works harder than Wilson.

[SYCMiniBus]

If you get Wilson for around 2-3 mil then I think it is a great move. I may even go up to about 4 mil per for him over 3 years (though I would have to think long and hard about that). But on the open market he my get as much as 5-6 mil from some team in which case I would say Paul thankyou for 2 very good years but we cant match that.
For the record I love Paul Wilson as a pitcher and he is a great guy, and I really do hope the Reds keep him, but it is a buisness.

[DeadRedinCT]

:idea:

Trade him first, then re-sign him as a FA.

[Raisor]

I suppose I can live with a one year deal and an option IF there's no trade that brings in someone with a better future, but his bionic arm scares the heck out of me.

[UKFlounder]

If you could get him for 1 year for maybe $4 - $5 million at absolute most, then I'd like to have him back (maybe even with a team option for a 2nd year), but I'd be wary of signing him for multiple years, given that this might be a career year (see Haynes in 2002) and his history of injuries.

[SYCMiniBus]

Originally Posted by UKFlounder

If you could get him for 1 year for maybe $4 - $5 million at absolute most, then I'd like to have him back (maybe even with a team option for a 2nd year), but I'd be wary of signing him for multiple years, given that this might be a career year (see Haynes in 2002) and his history of injuries.

The difference to me is Wilson has pitched about the same the last 3 years (injuries have jaded the overall numbers) where as Haynes pitched decent one year surrounded by about 12 awful years. Wilson is more "proven" as opposed to Jimmy Haynes who had 1 freak season.

[UKFlounder]

Originally Posted by SYCMiniBus

The difference to me is Wilson has pitched about the same the last 3 years (injuries have jaded the overall numbers) where as Haynes pitched decent one year surrounded by about 12 awful years. Wilson is more "proven" as opposed to Jimmy Haynes who had 1 freak season.

Very good point.

But had Haynes had as many arm troubles as Wilson has had in his career?

[Kc61]

Reds should sign Wilson for two years. Would give him about $3 million a year or slightly more. Would not resign Lidle who is not as good, very inconsistent.

If Wilson goes bad Reds will lose a few bucks. Big deal. Reds signed Haynes and he crapped out. Big deal.

Signing pitchers to huge long term contracts is a big risk. Signing a consistent veteran for 2 years is not a big risk. If you let every veteran pitcher go every year because of the risk they will go bad, you will never have a pitching staff.

Wilson is not great but is extremely consistent. He is very different from Haynes, who had been released by the Brewers. Wilson is a former top draft pick who has suffered from injuries but who now seems to have settled in as a solid but unspectacular veteran. He seems healthy.

Wilson, plus an acquisition, plus Claussen, Harang and one more young guy (Acevedo, Bong, someone else new) could be an improved rotation next year.

[Raisor]

[QUOTE=SYCMiniBus]The difference to me is Wilson has pitched about the same the last 3 years (injuries have jaded the overall numbers) QUOTE]


2002-2004
481.2 IP
4.48 ERA

No way do I go more then one year/+ TEAM option on this guy. The biggest mistake the Reds made with Haynes was giving him a player option, blah.

[Redmachine2003]

Originally Posted by DeadRedinCT

:idea:

Trade him first, then re-sign him as a FA.

That is what I say too. :GAC:

[M2]

Here's the problem with re-signing Wilson: Timing.

I don't care whether Paul Wilson is your best friend, the Reds needs to go out and bring in two pitchers better than him this offseason.

Unless they move a big contract this summer, that's probably going to require some offseason wheeling and dealing and that takes time. The Reds have to figure out how much money they can pool together to get those pitching upgrades. They've probably got enough to buy a Matt Clement or Russ Ortiz no matter what.

They may not have enough for one of those guys if they sign Wilson. Likewise, if they moved Danny Graves, signing Wilson might cost them a second pitcher.

And they have to make the decision on whether to sign Wilson early in the offseason. Seeing that they need pitching upgrades, knowing that they'll have more money to get those upgrades than at any point in the recent past, I don't see how you justify STARTING your offseason program by settling on a mediocre pitcher whom you ideally want to be your #4 guy.

If the Reds could add those two pitchers quickly and if Wilson was still around and available for one year at a price that fit the Reds' budget, then feel free to sign him. But there's a timeline in play that forces teams to make choices. Re-signing Paul Wilson means that you're chosing to keep largely intact what's been one of the worst rotations in all of baseball. It limits the scale of the other moves you can make and, IMO, the Reds would be fools not to pursue those options.

You've got to have priorities. And, just my opinion, if Paul Wilson's your priority, then I hope you enjoy life as an also-ran because that's where you're headed.

[MikeS21]

If some team is desperate enough next week (and there will be), they will cough up a couple young players who are a year or two away, who are MUCH better than you ever hoped Paul Wilson will be.

I'm all for keeping some core players, but Paul Wilson ain't it.

[oregonred]

Agree -- Wilson one year at 3-3.5M. I'd almost consider him a must sign unless the Reds get a killer deal at the deadline this season. Reds have no other viable rotation options in waiting for April 2005 and they need THREE rotation spots filled next season -- and that assumes Claussen/Harang are your two. Moseley maybe can help in '05.

In any event, the Reds need a quality #3 veteran presence. I'm skeptical you'll find anything better than Wilson bottom-fishing on a 1 yr deal -- I think the market for viable arms is going higher in the offseason due to the attendance spike and increased parity. My guess is someone would offer Wilson a 2 yr deal and that's why the F.O. needs to move fast and ship him out if he's not signable.

Hope is that by 2006 the promising wave of Nelson/Moseley/Gardner/Pauly allows you higher upside guys to fill out your rotation holes.

[M2]

Originally Posted by oregonred

Agree -- Wilson one year at 3-3.5M. I'd almost consider him a must sign unless the Reds get a killer deal at the deadline this season. Reds have no other viable rotation options in waiting for April 2005 and they need THREE rotation spots filled next season -- and that assumes Claussen/Harang are your two. Moseley maybe can help in '05.

In any event, the Reds need a quality #3 veteran presence. I'm skeptical you'll find anything better than Wilson bottom-fishing on a 1 yr deal -- I think the market for viable arms is going higher in the offseason due to the attendance spike and increased parity. My guess is someone would offer Wilson a 2 yr deal and that's why the F.O. needs to move fast and ship him out if he's not signable.

Hope is that by 2006 the promising wave of Nelson/Moseley/Gardner/Pauly allows you higher upside guys to fill out your rotation holes.

Assuming you can't do better, signing mediocrity, hoping for young pitchers to pan out. Haven't we been here before? Wasn't DanO brought in to change things?

Investing in a #3-4 guy and gambling on #1 and #2 doesn't strike me as all that sound an idea when you could invest in #1 and possibly a #2 and gamble on that #3-4 guy.