Blue Jays "aggressively" moving to trade Eric Hinske to the Reds

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by NJReds

I'd love an All-Star 3B, too, but I'm thinking w/in the constraints of our budget

He's not awful:
2004: 562 ABs, 68 R, 174 H, 36 2B, 3 3B, 15 HR, 80 RBI, 24 BB, 49 K, .310 avg, .348 oba, .464 slg, .812 ops

Considering he doesn't play 3rd well (or very much anymore) and he's mainly a 1st baseman he ain't worth 2.5 million bucks.

He gives me Phil Plantier feelings.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by NJReds

I'd rather sign Hillenbrand...RH, line drive hitter, low Ks, can play 3rd and 1st.

Actually he can play neither. They just put him their with a glove.

[NJReds]

Originally Posted by flyer85

Actually he can play neither. They just put him their with a glove.

LOL...then he'd fit right in w/this team

[M2]

Originally Posted by westofyou

The Reds don't have to pay anybody until opening day, if they want to overshoot their payroll budget and not worry about it now is the time.

It's all Tetris, every piece makes other pieces more plyable.

Acquire a 3rd baseman and someone else who plays becomes the piece to move.

That's my thinking too. IMO the key is to move Graves for Hinske. It gives the Reds $3.25M in their pocket this season. If Hinkse plays well, he immediately becomes a moveable chip (or Encarnacion does or Casey does, back to the Tetris idea). It's a fair trade. Toronto pays a little more up front, but sheds the burden of Hinske down the road while Cincinnati saves money today and accepts the risk of Hinske's longer term commitment.

So Hinske could even help the club in the immediate as far as freeing up money to land better starting pitching. IMO, that alone makes the deal worth the risk.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by M2

That's my thinking too. IMO the key is to move Graves for Hinske. It gives the Reds $3.25M in their pocket this season. If Hinkse plays well, he immediately becomes a moveable chip (or Encarnacion does or Casey does, back to the Tetris idea). It's a fair trade. Toronto pays a little more up front, but sheds the burden of Hinske down the road while Cincinnati saves money today and accepts the risk of Hinske's longer term commitment.

So Hinske could even help the club in the immediate as far as freeing up money to land better starting pitching. IMO, that alone makes the deal worth the risk.

If the Reds actually want to win a few games in '05 Graves will be far more important than Hinske to the team.

While Graves is not a good closer he is a far better relief pitcher than almost anyone else in the pen.

Hinske won't have much trade value with the size of his contract in 06 and 07.

[M2]

Originally Posted by flyer85

If the Reds actually want to win a few games in '05 Graves will be far more important than Hinske to the team.

While Graves is not a good closer he is a far better relief pitcher than almost anyone else in the pen.

Hinske won't have much trade value with the size of his contract in 06 and 07.

I disagree. If Hinske can post an .800+ OPS, he's got a great contract. In fact, it's the kind of contract that teams looking to fill a 3B hole would trip over themselves to get. Obviously Hinske has to rebound, but if he does, the market's a sure thing.

I don't really care about the won-lost total in 2005. Barring a total rebuild of the pitching staff, it's not going to be very good. What the Reds have to do is start acquiring long-term pieces of that puzzle. Graves won't be around when staff comes together, whomever the team gets with the $3.25M it'd save next season by trading Graves for Hinske might be. Hanging onto Graves is a pointless endeavor.

My advice is take the money (and the 3B) and run.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by M2

. Graves won't be around when staff comes together, whomever the team gets with the $3.25M it'd save next season by trading Graves for Hinske might be. .

It's a big risk though. That 3.5 million saved this year will cost you 10 million over the next 2 years. If he doesn't rebound, you have almost a Graves sized albtross for 2006-2007. I agree, though, if he rebounds to rookie form, it's a sweet deal.

We might be better off just keeping Graves in 2005 and then gaining his entire 7 million payflex after 2005 is over.

Of course, this is all under the assumption that the club could freely operate with any payflex generated (doubtful).

[Redmachine2003]

No risk No reward

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by M2

I don't really care about the won-lost total in 2005.

No reason to acquire Hinske then. He just isn't that good. He hit in the .240's in both 03 and 04 with 12 HRs and 15 HRs.

Given the data it is looking more like 2002 may have been a fluke and the pitchers have now figured him out.

His OPS has went from .846 to .766 to .687. A very disturbing trend. His BB Rate was ~33% lower in 2004 than 2002. No wonder the Jays want to unload him and replace him with Koskie. Nobody wants a sub.700 OPS 3B even if they are paying him the minimum much less more than $12M+ over the next three years.

Let someone else have the risk, I think the odds are higher that EE would perform at a better in 2005 than Hinske.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by M2

If Hinske can post an .800+ OPS, he's got a great contract.

Given the trend of his numbers there is little reason to believe that a .800+ OPS is likely and think even if it is with $12M+ due over 3 years he would need an OPS closer to .900 to earn that contract.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by Redmachine2003

No risk No reward

That is true but I prefer to stay away from High Risk/Low Reward and I hope the Reds FO does as well.

If they want a 3B go sign Koskie to a 1 yr $4M dollar deal. He has NEVER had a sub .800 OPS. He has been amazingly consistent over his 6 season. High of .855 and a low of .817 and he is MUCH better defensively.

[Aronchis]

The Kearns to third definitely looks like a "feint". He will be "revaluated" in January? Come on.

[Boss-Hog]

Am I missing something, or has any source mentioned Graves being part of a possible trade for Hinske? Of course it makes sense to trade his salary from our perspective. I just can't imagine someone like Ricciardi being interested in someone like Graves given that a). he has a large salary and b). he's not a very reliable closer. Like I said though, unless I didn't see a mention of it, I imagine Ricciardi would have his eyes on targets other than Graves.

Boss

[M2]

Originally Posted by flyer85

Given the trend of his numbers there is little reason to believe that a .800+ OPS is likely and think even if it is with $12M+ due over 3 years he would need an OPS closer to .900 to earn that contract.

A .900+ OPS at 3B would be worth eight digits on the open market. 3Bs simply don't reach that level all that often. In fact I don't think any Reds 3B has ever come close.

I like the Koskie idea, but no way is he signing a 1 year, $4M contract. He's getting a lot more than that both in terms of years and dollars. And that's why Hinske's deal will become relatively affordable if he gets back to .800+ production.

I can understand viewing Hinske as too much of a risk. The ONLY way I'd do the deal is if Graves gets shipped out and the Reds get that immediate burst of cash in pocket. For me, it's a starting pitcher acquisition move. That extra $3.25M could do a lot of good right here, right now. Used properly, the money is where you get the impact. Hinske's the tack-on. The way I view it is as a question of how far are you willing to go to get those starting pitchers you need. For me, the up front cash bump is worth the risk on Hinske. I understand it's not a safe bet, but the Reds aren't getting anywhere if they only make safe bets.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Am I missing something, or has any source mentioned Graves being part of a possible trade for Hinske? Of course it makes sense to trade his salary from our perspective. I just can't imagine someone like Ricciardi being interested in someone like Graves given that a). he has a large salary and b). he's not a very reliable closer. Like I said though, unless I didn't see a mention of it, I imagine Ricciardi would have his eyes on targets other than Graves.

Boss

I would have to agree. The Jays reason for trading Hinske is to pay some now and get out from under that salary obligation in 2006 and 2007. Just like the Reds and Jr albeit on a much smaller scale.

If the Jays figure a bounce back is likely from Hinske they would want to trade him and replace him with Koskie. I think they are trying to find someone to be the stuckee.