Kent Mercker signs for 2 years

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by puca

I hear what you are saying about Hudson. However I still think you are better off finding out if he is a major league pitcher before finding out if he is a major league starter. If a foundation of success can be built in the bullpen perhaps the self-doubt isn't as quick to creep in.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but unless the Reds find more starters I think Hudson has to be in the rotation.

Ortiz, Wilson and Harang are in there. And for the record, as I've stated many times, I am not a fan of Harang at all. But on the Reds he has to be in there.

That leaves two spots open. Claussen needs to be in the bullpen more than Hudson, IMO. Hancock is just garbage (again, my opinion). Therefore you have three other candidates all of whom probably belong in the bullpen right now - - Claussen and Hudson because they are both basically rookies, and Hancock because he throws slop. Two of them have to be in the rotation as of right now (barring any more moves).

Hudson is the best of that threesome right now. I think he falls into the 4th slot and Claussen and Hancock duke it out for that fifth spot out of spring training.

But it would be nice if the Reds had the luxury of putting arms in the bullpen before throwing them into the rotation.

[puca]

I agree that the way this team is currently constructed Hudson and possibly Claussen have to be in the roation. My big complaint is that the Reds put themselves in this situation by concentrating on relievers this offseason. I think Hudson and Claussen themselves would have made this a decent enough bullpen. I would have added a single lefty, and Mercker at 1.3 mil a year wouldn't have been my top choice.

While Hudson and Claussen as starters might have a better chance of keeping us in contention than a couple of reclamation projects, it is still a long shot. And it is a gamble that if it backfires could leave the Reds in a worse bind going into next year.

Do you believe the Reds have a shot in 2005? If not, ask yourself if this is the best approach for 2006?

[markymark69]

Signing Mercker was a good move. Upgrading the bullpen was the main objective and on paper, that has occurred. He wanted to be here and has been effective the last few years. I agree with the notion that O'Brien is trying the season the young arms in the minors w/o sacrificing them at the major league level before they are ready.

On Jimemez, I don't believe they had a choice. If Kearns at third fails (moving Freel there) and you and let Jimenez walk, who plays second? Even if the Randa signing happens, if Freel is at one position every day, you lose flexibility and I believe his effectiveness is somewhat negated. Jimemez signing is also, a good and necessary move.