Reds trade Dustin Moseley for Ramon Ortiz

[Cedric]

Acevado doesn't have good stuff, how in the hell that rumor started is beyond me. The guy throws a straight 92 fastball and a flat slider. He isn't good nor ever will be. I forgot to mention the worst part about this trade if it goes down, non tendering DJ because of this.

[Cedric]

I'd much rather use the money to lock up Dunn or to at least have some flexibility with it. Or not sign Wilson in the first place and take a gamble on Clement, Perez, or someone like that. Signing Ortiz for one year and hoping he does well enough to trade in July just seems lame to me. I would much prefer Dunn long term.

And no offense Buckeye33 but 4 million is about right where the Reds are going to pay him this year. He made 3.5 last year I believe and in arbitration he will get a raise. So basically we flipped a serviceable prospect for no reason and lost four million dollars we could have spent on Dunn. If this causes us to not tender DJ I think everyone will realize how stupid it is.

[M2]

Originally Posted by gm

Wrong. I never stated or implied that I could do a better job than Bowden. Neither have I called any fellow poster "arrogant" (at least, not since the days of Richard Hand...) I do point out that there's a culture of sports fans who cross the line regularly from "active rooting" to "show him the door!" If you want to take the Philadelphia road to caustic complaining, I have no means to prevent you. Just don't expect me to join the pile.

Uh, you were pretty Philly back before 1999 and early in that season. Near as I could tell, you wanted everyone on that team, save Pokey Reese and Ed Taubensee, shown the door. To your credit, you were trying to start a pile more than join one and you recognized fairly quickly that the team was a lot better than you'd thought. In fact, some of my favorite moments from that season were from the heat of the pennant race and posting with you on the old Fastball site about how cool the whole thing was.

I wouldn't call your position that Bowden needed to be canned "caustic complaining," but you were strident in how you thought his personality was damaging the organization.

Now, I never had a problem with you posing those arguments, though I agreed with neither (I wanted Bowden canned because he started losing the talent game in overwhelming fashion, not because I thought he was a front office cancer). You're an articulate and intelligent guy, you make your case, you don't dance around the edge of your opinions. I respect that. BTW, this is a great place to do that as it's a forum devoted to discussing Reds baseball and what you think about it. When they make a trade, if you happen to like or dislike it and have a reason why, this would be the ideal place make those thoughts known.

I don't think I'm letting any cats out of any bags by noting it's been a long four years and that for as frequently as folks who don't like a given trade or set of moves have to face the baseless contention that they secretly hate the Reds/are just saying that to make themselves look good/like to complain/insert additional dime store pop psychology analysis here, most of what the Reds have been doing over that time has failed. This move happens to follow a similar vein of other failed recent moves.

Me, I come here to talk about the Reds and baseball, which I assume is typical of most posters. When I like something they do, I say so and why. When I don't like something they do, I say so and why. I assume that's typical of most posters here. I haven't liked the bulk of what they've done in recent years and I've gotten used to getting knocked for it.

But I'd like to think you know better than to characterize Reds fans who want to see the franchise do better and dislike the direction they see it taking as bad people (which is how I read your comments). I'd think you'd have some sympathy for that point of view, even if you don't agree with the particulars, and I think you're better than that.

[SteelSD]

i would like to know why some on this board cant stand hancock.based on their performance last year , i would see hancock as #5 with claussen in l-ville unless he has a super spring.
they say one way to see how good someone is , is to see how they do when facing a team twice in a short time period.hancock had 2 starts against stl and 2 against cubs like that and all 4 were quality starts.he was 3-0 with a no decision(blown save) in those 4.claussen needs to work on not being at 70 pitches in 4th inning.

To answer your primary question, Josh Hancock posted a .856 OPS Against while giving up an astounding 14 HR in 54.2 Innings Pitched. That's beyond putrid.

During his minor league career, Hancock has allowed more Hits than IP, has put up pretty low K/IP rates, and simply hasn't done much of anything while pitching against players younger than him every step of the way.

The more Hancock pitches against teams, the more he's going to be brutalized. It's just not a good situation.

[RedlegJake]

Moseley is not a pitcher to build the future on. I don't think he was part of the Reds' plans, either, so what this is is an attempt to get a guy who will be better than a lot of the guys we have, who costs a bit but doesn't exactly break the bank - especially a couple years down the road (as long as the Reds don't get real stupid and overpay him if he has a decent couple seasons here). It fits my contention that the real intent of DO is a 2008-2010 timetable with Bailey, Pauly, Gardner, new draft picks and maybe a Claussen/Nelson holdover on the mound, and an offense led by Votto, EE & 1 of the current 3 - WMP, AK or Dunn. I'm betting the thinking is this helps a bit short term, doesn't involve anything that damages the long term and gives the impression something is being done now. After the ballyhooed plan of a "rebuilt" team to open GAB with failed so miserably, there's no way the Reds are going to come out and say 'we're not really aiming at winning right now'.

Now if they trade a Gardner, or Pauly or Votto type prospect for Ortiz like results then I'll be upset.

What we got is a starter to replace Hancock initially, a guy who has a chance to be much better than JH, but who probably won't be. In his new Van Poppel role, though, Hancock might be pretty decent. The deal deepens the pen then, while adding a starter. So now the Reds can claim some depth of mediocrity. That's the best praise I can find for the deal. I neither like it or dislike it. It's like treading water - no, you're not drowning but you're not moving out of the deep end either.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Cedric

I forgot to mention the worst part about this trade if it goes down, non tendering DJ because of this.

Well that meets my criteria for Springer furniture tossing time (credit to chili), but let's hope that doesn't happen.

[RedlegJake]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

To answer your primary question, Josh Hancock posted a .856 OPS Against while giving up an astounding 14 HR in 54.2 Innings Pitched. That's beyond putrid.

During his minor league career, Hancock has allowed more Hits than IP, has put up pretty low K/IP rates, and simply hasn't done much of anything while pitching against players younger than him every step of the way.

The more Hancock pitches against teams, the more he's going to be brutalized. It's just not a good situation.

Not to mention his 1.300+ OPS against when the bases are full, the horrific dropoff in numbers after 75 pitches, and the high BB/K rate to go along with the low overall K/9IP ratio. In Ortiz 2002, he allowed about 1.7 homers every 9 innings - that's not good. Hancock allowed nearly 2.5 homers per 9 innings last year. In a Van Poppel role he may have some utility - but I'd rather see Bong in Cincy and Josh at Louisville.

[Carter]

Can he pitch?

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by RedlegJake

Not to mention his 1.300+ OPS against when the bases are full, the horrific dropoff in numbers after 75 pitches, and the high BB/K rate to go along with the low overall K/9IP ratio. In Ortiz 2002, he allowed about 1.7 homers every 9 innings - that's not good. Hancock allowed nearly 2.5 homers per 9 innings last year. In a Van Poppel role he may have some utility - but I'd rather see Bong in Cincy and Josh at Louisville.

Y'know, just the adept use of statistics in that post makes me tear up.

And you're completely right. If the choice between Ortiz and Hancock were a movie title, the billboard outside would read...

"Homerun or Homerunerer"

[gonelong]

For the told-you-so's that come out next year, put me on the side of yuck for this trade. Losing Mosely is not that big a deal IMO, but Ortiz isn't progress either.

GL

Bad trade.
We traded a young pitcher who might blossom into a good mlb player for a guy whos had one good year and hes 31. He was moved to the bullpen because he basically sucks. His last year as a starter he had an era of 5.20 in 32 starts.

Hes had an era below 4.00 ONCE in his entire career. His lifetime era is 4.60
His wins record is inflated by playing on good teams. His best year was the year they went to the series.

Hes garbage. Typical Reds garbage starter. He was cut loose by the angels who offered him a 100k buyout rather then have him on their roster anymore.
I dont care whether or not Moseley pans out, cause thats not the point. The point is, he has a better chance of being a good mlb pitcher then the bust we got in return.


what scares me most is...
Reds general manager Dan O'Brien said the acquisition of Ortiz gives the team's rotation ``a step forward in credibility.''
Umm with who would that be dano? Your kidding right? This guy is a 5th at best on most teams. Is this a joke?

``We have been pursuing Mr. Ortiz for months, (god only knows why) '' O'Brien said. ``We sensed he might be available at some point. (what clued you to that dano? would it be that the Angels thought he sucked enough to offer him 100k just to get rid of him??) His success (thanks to playing on a actual contender ) has been as a starting pitcher(where he preceded to stink so bad with a 5.20 ERA the Angels moved him to relief) , accumulating 200 innings ( and alot of dingers) and putting up double-digit wins (and a very ugly 4.60 lifetime ERA) for a successive number of years.

``We feel it's a very simple (only the thought process behind this trade) case of (a bad trade) putting him back into the role in which he's traditionally (done the most damage) been very successful ( in getting rocked). Obviously, we're committed ( you should be for doing this) to (screwing this team up even more )doing that.''


Ryan Dempster anyone?
Blah this trade makes me ill.

[Ravenlord]

yet another guy who is much better suited to be strong bp guy. at least this one can eat innings though.

[Raisor]

Originally Posted by Redmachine2003

Some pitches pitch just good enough to win and other pitch just good enough to lose.

:dflynn:

[redsfanmia]

Lighten up! Ortiz is the second best starter we have now. He is a solid pitcher, no he is not going to win 20 games but he will eat innings and get 10 to 12 wins. I think it was a good move, very low risk we can deal him at the trading deadline for a prospect just like Moseley. This trade at least shows me that the GM has a pulse!

[Ravenlord]

Originally Posted by Redmachine2003

Some pitches pitch just good enough to win and other pitch just good enough to lose

Player	W-L	ERA	IP	K	BB	H	HR
A	5-9	2.71	162.2	118	61	144	15
B	11-15	3.00	203.2	152	63	177	13
C	12-15	3.58	256.2	214	104	196	30
D	15-9	5.10	160.2	99	64	180	23
E	13-9	5.28	202.2	114	57	252	35
F	9-5	5.56	126.1	74	41	153	21

so what you're saying is that you'd take D, E, and F over A, B, and C?