Freel signed to a two year extension

[redsfan30]

Is it just me, or has the overall tone towards Ryan Freel done a complete 180 relatively quickly around here?

[Red Leader]

Originally Posted by redsfan30

Is it just me, or has the overall tone towards Ryan Freel done a complete 180 relatively quickly around here?

I've never not liked Ryan Freel, I just think he's a spare part. I don't get all excited that the team signs spare parts to extensions or long term contracts before addressing holes on the current team, though. That's my reason for the "ugh" post above. Can't speak for anyone else.

After this signing it wouldn't surprise me to see the Reds go with a Griffey, Hamilton, Freel OF next year and bye-bye Adam. This signing makes that option a little more realistic, IMO, and that's another reason for the "ugh" above.

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by Red Leader

After this signing it wouldn't surprise me to see the Reds go with a Griffey, Hamilton, Freel OF next year and bye-bye Adam. This signing makes that option a little more realistic, IMO, and that's another reason for the "ugh" above.

If it's 5+ mill a season then I think you could be right about this, budget minded teams don't toss 5 mill a year on guys who they plan to have as a backup.

[redsfan30]

Depending on the dollar amounts, maybe this is a deal geared towards a possible trade?

[Red Leader]

Originally Posted by redsfan30

Depending on the dollar amounts, maybe this is a deal geared towards a possible trade?

I hope that's what it is, but I'm not going all in on that hope. If it's not and the Reds do plan on going with Griffey, Freel, and Hamilton they better get a huge butt load of talent for Dunn at the deadline this year. Still won't be the same, but letting Dunn walk at the end of the year would infuriate me.

[kaldaniels]

Say what you all want about Freel regard the stats and production and all...he just seems to be one of those guys you'd rather have on your side than be playing against him. Imagine he hit FA and we played against him 18 times a year...he just seems to be one of those guys who drives opposing teams nuts. I like the extension, especially if he does assume the "super-sub" role.

[oneupper]

Freel is VERY replaceable. The Freels of this world come in, give you 3-4 years of aceptable performance and you let them go on their way.

WK got rid of AK and FL because he didn't want to tie up big $$$ on average performance.

This is a horrible move. The team gets older and too many things can go wrong for it to be even remotely worth it.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by redsfan30

Is it just me, or has the overall tone towards Ryan Freel done a complete 180 relatively quickly around here?

Agreed completely. Enter Josh Hamilton (though).

4-5 mil a year would be a bit pricey. I'll reserve judgment until the official amount(s) are revealed.

[RedEye]

Color me confused. Freel is a useful player, but that's it. Why are we spending all our money on useful players rather than looking to invest in cornerstones? IMO, we've already overpaid for Arroyo and a gazillion old relievers. Depending on the dollar amount, we might now be adding an aging supersub to that list.

[big boy]

Could this have been for the fans? I know someone who would boycott the Reds if they ever unloaded Freel.

[Caveat Emperor]

Freel's a very valuable commodity for a small-market team: a player that can give above replacement-level performance at multiple positions on the diamond.

For a team with no bench to speak of, having someone like Freel around is beyond important -- especially if the team wants to start working Hamilton into the everyday lineup. Plus, if he feels hes being fairly compensated he'll be less likely to complain about fewer starts, IMO.

As long as the dollars aren't insane, I'm OK with this move.

[Marc D]

Remember all these nickels and dimes being spent on spare parts when we can't afford/won't pay dollars to keep Dunn.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by Marc D

Remember all these nickels and dimes being spent on spare parts when we can't afford/won't pay dollars to keep Dunn.

So far I haven't seen any real nickel and diming behavior from the new regime. They paid Harang to keep him. They paid Arroyo to keep him. They paid Dunn to keep him.

Who is to say the Reds can't/won't pay Dunn to stay around when his contract comes up? I haven't seen any indication that they plan to nickel and dime with in-house talent, thus far.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Freel's a very valuable commodity for a small-market team: a player that can give above replacement-level performance at multiple positions on the diamond.

For a team with no bench to speak of, having someone like Freel around is beyond important -- especially if the team wants to start working Hamilton into the everyday lineup. Plus, if he feels hes being fairly compensated he'll be less likely to complain about fewer starts, IMO.

As long as the dollars aren't insane, I'm OK with this move.

Good post. Krivsky likes depth. He understands that, in addition to stars, you need good role players too. The depth of the pitching staff will definitely help the Reds this year.

Freel may not be a starter/lead off man for all three years, but he is a good guy to have. Plays multiple positions, covers ground in the outfield, hits right handed, a lead off type (Reds have very few).

Eventually Krivksy will spend for more stars, I'm sure of it. But making sure the team is deep and flexible is important too. Good move.

[PuffyPig]

This makes Freel more tradeable.

Without the signing, eventually the descision to stay or go would rest with Freel.

It now rest with us.

As long as the dollors are in line with his value, I don't see the harm in getting some cost security for our assets.

And to those how thing we overpayed fro Arroyo? Did you see what guys like Meche, Lilly etc. were getting last year?