Randa signed

[johngalt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Ok. How many additional Runs are the acquisitions worth versus the Innings pitched by those the Reds let go?

That's all I ask, just give me a number backed by reasonable research.

From 2002-2004....

Van Poppel, Riedling and Norton:
545.3 innings
334 runs (208 earned)
5.512 runs/9 IP
*For Norton, this is only 2003-2004 because he didn't pitch in the Majors in 2002.

Weathers, Weber and Mercker:
Totals:
508.3 innings 56.48
246 runs (216 earned)
4.356 runs/9 IP
*For Mercker, this includes 2002 with Colorado.

Paul Wilson will not repeat his 2004 numbers so now we're at a net loss.

Actually, Wilson has registered the same ERA vs. League Average rating for four straight years, so I'd say it's a safe bet he'll repeat 2004 (whether that's good or bad is another debate)

Please note anyone that Dan O'Brien has inked to a pen slot who pitched over 60 Innings in 2004 with an ERA under 4.00.

In 2003 and 2004, Mercker had ERAs of 1.95 and 2.55 in 55 1/3 and 53 innings, respectively. Not 60 innings, but that's splitting hairs.

Prior to 2004, Weathers pitched at least 75 innings with an ERA no higher than 3.08 for four straight years. Last season that ERA hit 4.15 in 82.3 innings.

Sorry, just barely missed your random criteria, but I still see a high probability you'll see both guys with ERAs closer to 3.00 than 4.00 in 2005.

It IS a big deal when you spend over two million dollars on a player who projects to be a Run Value bust at the position versus a player you had in hand. That's a BIG DEAL.

Spending $2.1 million on a starting third baseman just doesn't seem extravagant to me. Will Randa be an All-Star? No, but he will earn that money this season.

And let's go ahead and make the Freel comparison.

*Each had 67 runs created in 2004, Randa's coming in 539 PAs and Freel's coming in 592.

*Randa has the advantage in BA (.287 vs. .277), slugging percentage (.408 vs. .368), OPS (.751 vs. .743), RBIs (56 vs. 28), total bases (198 vs. 186), home runs (8 vs. 3), doubles (31 vs. 21) and fewer strikeouts (77 vs. 88).

*Freel has the advantage in OBP (.375 vs. .343), steals (37 vs. 0), runs scored (74 vs. 65), hits (140 vs. 139), walks (67) and triples (8 vs. 2).

*On the defensive side, Randa had a .967 fielding percentage (11 errors in 119 games) against a league average of .951. Freel had a .925 fielding percentage (12 erros in 56 games) against a .956 league average. Randa's range factor/game was 2.74, while Freel's was 2.66.

Looking at that info, I'd give the offensive nod to Randa (not by much), although I can understand the argument that what Freel provides offensively might be more valuable to our lineup in relation to what we already have. On the defensive side, I don't think there's any question Randa is much better than Freel at third, particularly if we're looking at an everyday guy.

Additionally, if you start Freel at third, your first infielder off the bench is going to either be Machado or a free agent, with Reese a possibility. I'd definitely take a Randa/Freel combo over a Freel/Machado combo and I would take it over Freel/Reese as well.

Because having a Matt Clement (I am not a proponent of Odalis Perez) means that you have a great chance of beating any team every fifth day out. Because having a sub-.700 OPS in a Starter slot actually means something- because there were only 25 Starting Pitchers in MLB who posted sub-.700 OPS Against numbers in 2004 and those pitchers are geometrically more valuable than the below-league-average puds the Reds now own lock, stock, and barrel.

I'm with you as far as Clement having an impact, and I do believe he could have helped us out. But signing Clement would probably mean him being our biggest signing not just this year, but next year as well because of the commitment that would need to be made. Every fifth day, Clement's chances of winning would be much, much greater than any pitcher the Reds have right now. But I look at these other additions, and to me, it gives the Reds a much better shot at winning the other four games. That's just more valuable to me.

Very simply, there was no hole at 3B that couldn't have been filled for less.

Aside from Freel, how else could third have been filled for less? Tony Batista? Vinny Castilla? Mark Derosa? I don't see anyone out there that fits coming cheaper and providing more of an improvement.

[Redmachine2003]

I am not sure what to think about this move. I guess I am just waiting for the second shoe to fall. If signing Randa means the Reds are going to trade one of our out fielders I want to see what they get in return before I say this was a good deal.

[oregonred]

Don't worry Freel will still find a way to get 450+ AB's this season. History says you'll be lucky to get 600 AB's combined out of KGJ/Kearns.

Position wise this team is much deeper than the beginning of 2004. The bench/subs are going to be WAY better than the 2004 squad

Hello to Earth... Folks we suffered through 750+ sub .300 OBP/.610 OPS AB's of Castro/Thug Life/Cruz/Larson/Bragg littering the lineup in 2004. Now you're looking at slotting almost all of those forgettable 700AB's for a Randa/Freel and WMP/Kearns combination. The worshipped Twins FO forked out 1M per for Juan Castro (Juan Castro!). Randa at 2.15M for a one year deal looks highway robbery compared to the Castro contract. Sorry, 3B isn't a position you fill easily -- you certainly aren't finding Randas for $500-1M on the open market. I'm actually surprised Randa didn't cost a bit more in the market --especailly for a one year deal. Do we print playoff tickets, heck no, but it's a lot better than the stinkfest this weak roster trolled out on a daily basis from June onwards.

Finally, I love how people proclaim with certainty that they are smarter than the GM and have all the answers. We have some very talented people here, but Dan O's running one of 30 MLB franchises and has been part of two very successful MLB minor league system retoolings all while we're playing around on an internet message board in our spare time (albeit the best sports one in existance I've ever seen). Dan O likely knew the Kearns to 3B experiment was a crapshoot at best, and almost certainly knew with 98% certainty that Kearns would be in RF or in another city come opening day. Maybe the AK 3B experiment was to smokescreen trade value (not look like you needed to deal a young OF). Who knows??

[Redsfaithful]

I really don't get the Ryan Freel fetish. I know he's cheap, and he gets on a base at an ok clip (I wouldn't call .375 amazing or anything, especially when combined with a .368 slugging percentage). But the guy's an injury waiting to happen, and he's played one full season at the major league level. And that was at the age of 28.

I know everyone seems to have the attitude that the Reds can't win in 2005, so why bother, but I really don't see the point in giving up entirely. Starting Ryan Freel at third instead of Joe Randa would save the team like $1.5 million. How does that make the Reds better? What AAAA scrub would then be on the bench instead of Freel?

O'Brien seems to want to put something watchable on the field while we wait for minor league development. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but I appreciate the effort.

None of this has cost the Reds any youth except for Dustin Moseley. I haven't seen any long term deals handed out to anyone that we've signed. So how does any of this hurt things? People seem to want Matt Clement instead of everyone we've signed, but I don't think Clement was ever an option, whether the Reds explored it or not. He signed with Boston, a team more than capable of beating any offer little ol' Cincinnati would be willing to put on the table. Not to mention that the guy has family in Philadelphia who can now watch him pitch on a regular basis.

Worst case scenario the Reds don't improve, and we're a year closer to EdE, Joey Votto, Richie Gardner, and Thomas Pauly. And we're also a year further in the development of Wily Mo, Kearns, Dunn, Wagner, Claussen, Hudson, etc. That seems fine to me.

[Redmachine2003]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

I really don't get the Ryan Freel fetish. I know he's cheap, and he gets on a base at an ok clip (I wouldn't call .375 amazing or anything, especially when combined with a .368 slugging percentage). But the guy's an injury waiting to happen, and he's played one full season at the major league level. And that was at the age of 28.

I know everyone seems to have the attitude that the Reds can't win in 2005, so why bother, but I really don't see the point in giving up entirely. Starting Ryan Freel at third instead of Joe Randa would save the team like $1.5 million. How does that make the Reds better? What AAAA scrub would then be on the bench instead of Freel?

O'Brien seems to want to put something watchable on the field while we wait for minor league development. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but I appreciate the effort.

None of this has cost the Reds any youth except for Dustin Moseley. I haven't seen any long term deals handed out to anyone that we've signed. So how does any of this hurt things? People seem to want Matt Clement instead of everyone we've signed, but I don't think Clement was ever an option, whether the Reds explored it or not. He signed with Boston, a team more than capable of beating any offer little ol' Cincinnati would be willing to put on the table. Not to mention that the guy has family in Philadelphia who can now watch him pitch on a regular basis.

Worst case scenario the Reds don't improve, and we're a year closer to EdE, Joey Votto, Richie Gardner, and Thomas Pauly. And we're also a year further in the development of Wily Mo, Kearns, Dunn, Wagner, Claussen, Hudson, etc. That seems fine to me.

With Freel it is the Pete Rose likeness the Reds fans go crazy for. I really don't understand it myself but Cincy fans are Rose nuts.

[Ravenlord]

Wilson, Ortiz, Randa combined make about 10.17 mil. with whom came off the books last year, and who's on now, the Reds are using about 14.2mil of a possible 14.5 mil (that does include arb and Graves and Casey's upage). gee, wonder who could have been signed with that 10.17

O'Brien has a direction. it's one i very much don't agree with, but there is a consistant plan of trying to obviously improve. he's just make poor choices. :thumbdown

[TeamCasey]

I wonder who'll make the last post on this thread?

[Redmachine2003]

Originally Posted by Ravenlord

Wilson, Ortiz, Randa combined make about 10.17 mil. with whom came off the books last year, and who's on now, the Reds are using about 14.2mil of a possible 14.5 mil (that does include arb and Graves and Casey's upage). gee, wonder who could have been signed with that 10.17

O'Brien has a direction. it's one i very much don't agree with, but there is a consistant plan of trying to obviously improve. he's just make poor choices. :thumbdown

Yes he could have signed superman to play 3rd and take two spots in the starting rotation. Your boat is sinking there are 5 little holes and one big hole so you go out and buy the nicest biggest plug out there and you plug up the big hole. You spent all of your money and The boat still sinks because you have 5 little holes still letting in water.

[Ravenlord]

Originally Posted by Redmachine2003

Yes he could have signed superman to play 3rd and take two spots in the starting rotation. Your boat is sinking there are 5 little holes and one big hole so you go out and buy the nicest biggest plug out there and you plug up the big hole. You spent all of your money and The boat still sinks because you have 5 little holes still letting in water.

and he entirely misses the point.

3B Branyan $800,000
RHP Clement $8,330,000
RHP Millwood $3,000,000
LHP de los Santos $450,000
RHP Weber (i like this one sorta) $1,250,000
don't non-tender Riedling.
and i think with a back loaded deal, you could get Wade Miller for about $900,000 and 2-3 million next year on a team option
sign LaRue to a two year deal instead of a single year. first year 2.5, second year 3.3. incentives for both years.

total: $14.73 million, plus $500,000 saved for 05 on LaRue. also i wouldn't have let Etherton go. i figure he'll start the year in Oakland's bullpen. undervalued minorleaguer who's hitting peak years and had a bloody good year in AAA last year.

though don't get me wrong, i still think this team will finish better than they did last year. i just don't think that'll hold through in 06

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

I really don't get the Ryan Freel fetish. I know he's cheap, and he gets on a base at an ok clip (I wouldn't call .375 amazing or anything, especially when combined with a .368 slugging percentage). But the guy's an injury waiting to happen, and he's played one full season at the major league level. And that was at the age of 28.

I know everyone seems to have the attitude that the Reds can't win in 2005, so why bother, but I really don't see the point in giving up entirely. Starting Ryan Freel at third instead of Joe Randa would save the team like $1.5 million. How does that make the Reds better? What AAAA scrub would then be on the bench instead of Freel?

O'Brien seems to want to put something watchable on the field while we wait for minor league development. I don't agree with everything he's doing, but I appreciate the effort.

None of this has cost the Reds any youth except for Dustin Moseley. I haven't seen any long term deals handed out to anyone that we've signed. So how does any of this hurt things? People seem to want Matt Clement instead of everyone we've signed, but I don't think Clement was ever an option, whether the Reds explored it or not. He signed with Boston, a team more than capable of beating any offer little ol' Cincinnati would be willing to put on the table. Not to mention that the guy has family in Philadelphia who can now watch him pitch on a regular basis.

Worst case scenario the Reds don't improve, and we're a year closer to EdE, Joey Votto, Richie Gardner, and Thomas Pauly. And we're also a year further in the development of Wily Mo, Kearns, Dunn, Wagner, Claussen, Hudson, etc. That seems fine to me.

I have to agree with about every word.

You too, Oregon

I like the signing, it frees up Freel to play other positions and come off the bench. Also, if we are dealing an OF, why didn't we make an offer like Pena/Clausen and a minor leaguer to the As for say Hudson?

[Cedric]

Free agent at the end of the year. It really makes no sense to trdae away future like Wily Mo for a rental, but I would love to have Hudson. From reading between the lines of DanO I would say Wily Mo Pena is almost the most untouchable player on the roster. I'd say Dunn and Pena are the two most unlikely to be traded but Dunn less so because of salary.

[CougarQuest]

Ravenlord, if you are talking about Ben Weber, he will make $600,000 in '05, not $1.25M.

"Wilson, Ortiz, Randa combined make about 10.17 mil."
Wilson will make $3.6 in 2005. Randa will make $2.15M in 2005. No one knows what Ortiz will make yet. Where are you coming up with $10.17M for 2005?

[CougarQuest]

I knew yesterday that we were in for a lot of snow. By reading this thread, the sky is falling.

[traderumor]

Randa at about $2.15M is agreeable. I don't think it is wasted money, and I think that his lack of power for a corner position is not as critical with the offensive mix the Reds have, who have enough power. From what I've read, he will help a defense that needs all the help it can get. Plus, its a one year contract with a prospect on the way.

I also don't see his signing preventing us from doing other things. It shouldn't have any effect on the draft budget, it didn't in and of itself keep us from signing a #1 pitcher, and it could open the door to letting go of one of the three amigos to get that.

Just to admittedly stoke those flames, it seems that when Billy Beane makes a deal, great gyrations are performed to find reasons why a deal makes sense or is a genious move, while the exact opposite seems to occur with moves the Reds FO makes. I said I wasn't going to defend obvious stupid moves, but when I look at signing Randa to play third, I'm just not seeing the downside others are seeing on this one.