Fay's Sunday Column: Reds Must Get Big Time Pitcher

[Aronchis]

Yeah, the Reds need guys that they can hold for several years ala when the A's traded for Haren before they get pricey.

[RedlegJake]

I'm the minority I guess, the dissenting voice. I would not give up so much for Bedard, for 2 years of a guy who will then almost certainly leave via free agency - ad there is no way in Hades the Reds can re-sign him and keep their core intact as players follow Dunn into their FA years. Haren, who is controlled for a longer term, yes. Bedard, no. First of all Bedard alone isn't enough. The starting ranks are so thin another starter still must be added. Cueto and/or Maloney neither one should be a significant factor in 08. Maloney - maybe in the 2nd half if he goes to AAA and keeps his K rate up and has similar success to last years AA season. Cueto I wouldn't bring up until September - or just before the post season roster deadline if the Reds are contending. First of all, I think the Dodgers get Bedard because they will just up the ante - I think they want Bedard even more than the Reds and the only deal that could trump theirs would bring Bruce into the picture. Their fans are just as tired of losing - and the Dodger organization has put a lot more money into trying to win - and failing pretty miserably (yes they have a lot more revenue but that just exasperates their situation since it makes them look all the more incompetent). Now they have splashed with the Torre signing and he knows Bedard and wants him. Simply put they are in the game. The O's have the perfect situation - two bidders, both need their commodity - both have rich pieces to put in play and time on their side. If neither blinks, just hold your player until the deadline and someone will overpay. That's the Os third trump - any contender will want Bedard at the deadline. I don't overpay for Bedard. I don't deal the young base just yet. I look West to Haren and really try to make a deal work there. At least if I give up 3 of my stud talents I get to keep my ace a lot longer. If I am going to overpay, I am doing it for a guy who is younger, has as much or more upside than Bedard, has proven he can do it, and will be around longer.

I look to SF and offer offense, which the Reds can afford, to acquire a second tier arm there.

I take another risky approach and del for Harden rather than Haren. With is injury risk his price should be lower then I continue and...
I continue the young arm route and deal with Texas for Volquez (I've seen him pitch and his arm is electric but this would admittedly be a play for 09 and 10 more than 08 - a play for Bailey-Cueto-Volquez-Harden future). I maybe try and pry a younger arm like Blake Beavan at the same time.

I'd sign Lieber to a 1 year deal, and then punt for Colon in an incentive laden deal. I am also one of the few here who think he's a good bet. This would be a very high risk approach but has chance to pay off huge. Colon really needs a good season to get one more big payday and he knows it. Lieber is a solid backend starter. I'd do the Lieber deal even if I landed Haren or Bedard. I'd add Colon if I did the Texas or SF deal.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by RedlegJake

I'm the minority I guess, the dissenting voice. I would not give up so much for Bedard, for 2 years of a guy who will then almost certainly leave via free agency - ad there is no way in Hades the Reds can re-sign him and keep their core intact as players follow Dunn into their FA years. Haren, who is controlled for a longer term, yes. Bedard, no. First of all Bedard alone isn't enough. The starting ranks are so thin another starter still must be added. Cueto and/or Maloney neither one should be a significant factor in 08. Maloney - maybe in the 2nd half if he goes to AAA and keeps his K rate up and has similar success to last years AA season. Cueto I wouldn't bring up until September - or just before the post season roster deadline if the Reds are contending. First of all, I think the Dodgers get Bedard because they will just up the ante - I think they want Bedard even more than the Reds and the only deal that could trump theirs would bring Bruce into the picture. Their fans are just as tired of losing - and the Dodger organization has put a lot more money into trying to win - and failing pretty miserably (yes they have a lot more revenue but that just exasperates their situation since it makes them look all the more incompetent). Now they have splashed with the Torre signing and he knows Bedard and wants him. Simply put they are in the game. The O's have the perfect situation - two bidders, both need their commodity - both have rich pieces to put in play and time on their side. If neither blinks, just hold your player until the deadline and someone will overpay. That's the Os third trump - any contender will want Bedard at the deadline. I don't overpay for Bedard. I don't deal the young base just yet. I look West to Haren and really try to make a deal work there. At least if I give up 3 of my stud talents I get to keep my ace a lot longer. If I am going to overpay, I am doing it for a guy who is younger, has as much or more upside than Bedard, has proven he can do it, and will be around longer.

I look to SF and offer offense, which the Reds can afford, to acquire a second tier arm there.

I take another risky approach and del for Harden rather than Haren. With is injury risk his price should be lower then I continue and...
I continue the young arm route and deal with Texas for Volquez (I've seen him pitch and his arm is electric but this would admittedly be a play for 09 and 10 more than 08 - a play for Bailey-Cueto-Volquez-Harden future). I maybe try and pry a younger arm like Blake Beavan at the same time.

I'd sign Lieber to a 1 year deal, and then punt for Colon in an incentive laden deal. I am also one of the few here who think he's a good bet. This would be a very high risk approach but has chance to pay off huge. Colon really needs a good season to get one more big payday and he knows it. Lieber is a solid backend starter. I'd do the Lieber deal even if I landed Haren or Bedard. I'd add Colon if I did the Texas or SF deal.

I like you're thinking and you're right, it would be a risky approach. But I join you in the minority.

I do want to say though that this has, overall, been one of the best discussions in a long time. Not much agreement overall (well, this is Redszone!), but those who say "go for it" have thrown out plausible scenarios that don't bankrupt our system.

The reality is, with any of these deals, we're in a huge game of chicken. The clubs with the decent pitchers who plan on moving them know the market is thin. I applaud Wayne for an approach that seems to be hanging tough to make the deal that is in our best interest. He doesn't seem to be making moves of desperation (which some probably correctly note was what happened with the Nats trade - not to open that can of worms).

[Kc61]

Professional sports today is not a long-term business. You never know the mix of players you will have in three years. In three years, Adam Dunn may be gone, Griffey will be gone, and who knows if Harang will be a Red. And even if Dunn and Harang are still Reds, who knows if they will be healthy and productive that far in the future.

Stockpiling prospects today is, in part, a way to trade for veteran players. The problem here is that folks are in love with the projected future of young minor leaguers. But history shows that these things often don't pan out.

Bedard has two years left. If he then leaves, and if there is a need, the Reds can go into the free agent market and get another pitcher. Or maybe at that point the Reds will have other great pitchers, or maybe the team will be terrible and it won't make sense to replace Bedard.

All I know is that folks are exaggerating the value of these young kids. The only one who, to me, seems to have really extraordinary value is Bruce, who probably should be a keeper.

Bailey is a young pitcher who projects well but has command issues and "second and third pitch" issues. Hamilton has tremendous ability but there are health concerns and he didn't hit lefties well. Votto projects as a good hitting first baseman, but perhaps not a powerhouse as one might want at first. Cueto probably has a good future but may not be that "projectable" since he doesn't have the classic frame.

All these guys are very good prospects, it would be nice to keep them, but for when? For a day in the future when maybe Harang, Arroyo and Dunn are gone?

At some point, you have to go for it. Maybe Bedard is the wrong choice, that's entirely possible, but Reds recent history shows that picking up guys nobody else wants isn't usually a way to have success.

[Tommyjohn25]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Professional sports today is not a long-term business. You never know the mix of players you will have in three years. In three years, Adam Dunn may be gone, Griffey will be gone, and who knows if Harang will be a Red. And even if Dunn and Harang are still Reds, who knows if they will be healthy and productive that far in the future.

Stockpiling prospects today is, in part, a way to trade for veteran players. The problem here is that folks are in love with the projected future of young minor leaguers. But history shows that these things often don't pan out.

Bedard has two years left. If he then leaves, and if there is a need, the Reds can go into the free agent market and get another pitcher. Or maybe at that point the Reds will have other great pitchers, or maybe the team will be terrible and it won't make sense to replace Bedard.

All I know is that folks are exaggerating the value of these young kids. The only one who, to me, seems to have really extraordinary value is Bruce, who probably should be a keeper.

Bailey is a young pitcher who projects well but has command issues and "second and third pitch" issues. Hamilton has tremendous ability but there are health concerns and he didn't hit lefties well. Votto projects as a good hitting first baseman, but perhaps not a powerhouse as one might want at first. Cueto probably has a good future but may not be that "projectable" since he doesn't have the classic frame.

All these guys are very good prospects, it would be nice to keep them, but for when? For a day in the future when maybe Harang, Arroyo and Dunn are gone?

At some point, you have to go for it. Maybe Bedard is the wrong choice, that's entirely possible, but Reds recent history shows that picking up guys nobody else wants isn't usually a way to have success.

Fantastic post. I've been thinking the same thing, just couldn't find a way to articulate it so well.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Professional sports today is not a long-term business. You never know the mix of players you will have in three years. In three years, Adam Dunn may be gone, Griffey will be gone, and who knows if Harang will be a Red. And even if Dunn and Harang are still Reds, who knows if they will be healthy and productive that far in the future.

Stockpiling prospects today is, in part, a way to trade for veteran players. The problem here is that folks are in love with the projected future of young minor leaguers. But history shows that these things often don't pan out.

Bedard has two years left. If he then leaves, and if there is a need, the Reds can go into the free agent market and get another pitcher. Or maybe at that point the Reds will have other great pitchers, or maybe the team will be terrible and it won't make sense to replace Bedard.

All I know is that folks are exaggerating the value of these young kids. The only one who, to me, seems to have really extraordinary value is Bruce, who probably should be a keeper.

Bailey is a young pitcher who projects well but has command issues and "second and third pitch" issues. Hamilton has tremendous ability but there are health concerns and he didn't hit lefties well. Votto projects as a good hitting first baseman, but perhaps not a powerhouse as one might want at first. Cueto probably has a good future but may not be that "projectable" since he doesn't have the classic frame.

All these guys are very good prospects, it would be nice to keep them, but for when? For a day in the future when maybe Harang, Arroyo and Dunn are gone?

At some point, you have to go for it. Maybe Bedard is the wrong choice, that's entirely possible, but Reds recent history shows that picking up guys nobody else wants isn't usually a way to have success.

Excellent post, I agree completely.

[RFS62]

Great post, Kc61

[RedsManRick]

My biggest concern is that the real issue with the Reds rotation isn't that it lacks another top starter, it's that it lacks 2 competent starters. Acquiring Bedard or Haren doesn't help that much if it leaves Tom Shearn as our #5.

I think we should be careful not to treat all non-MLB "prospects" as equals. There is a great difference between a guy ready to play in some capacity versus somebody who projects well but is sitting in A ball or AA.

I agree that stockpiling talent alone is rarely a good path to success. When some of that talent matures, you need to supplement it and make your run. However, if you choose to go for broke, you better make sure you have a good enough hand. With the Reds core under contract, I hesitate to go all-in on any pitcher, and rather wait for 1 more year, or 3 months of maturation from Bailey, Cueto, Bruce, Votto, and Hamilton.

Trading prospects for established major leaguers essentially locks you in at a given talent level -- or at least narrows the band. It can raise your performance floor (i.e. we're now an 82 win team at worst) but it can lower your ceiling too. If that range of expectation puts you in the playoffs more often than not, then moving your chips is probably a good idea. However, I'm not sold that adding Bedard or Haren does that for us.

I don't want to see this core peak as a wild card contender. If you can get one of those guys for 1 of the pitchers, 1 of Votto or Hamilton, and a not-ready guy like Wood, then you go for it. But getting rid of 3 (or more) guys who all could significantly contribute themselves in 2008 seems like a risk not worth taking. The opportunity to add that pitcher will still exist in July, or next fall.

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Great post, Kc61

Agreed, two thumbs up.

[Ron Madden]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Professional sports today is not a long-term business. You never know the mix of players you will have in three years. In three years, Adam Dunn may be gone, Griffey will be gone, and who knows if Harang will be a Red. And even if Dunn and Harang are still Reds, who knows if they will be healthy and productive that far in the future.

Stockpiling prospects today is, in part, a way to trade for veteran players. The problem here is that folks are in love with the projected future of young minor leaguers. But history shows that these things often don't pan out.

Bedard has two years left. If he then leaves, and if there is a need, the Reds can go into the free agent market and get another pitcher. Or maybe at that point the Reds will have other great pitchers, or maybe the team will be terrible and it won't make sense to replace Bedard.

All I know is that folks are exaggerating the value of these young kids. The only one who, to me, seems to have really extraordinary value is Bruce, who probably should be a keeper.

Bailey is a young pitcher who projects well but has command issues and "second and third pitch" issues. Hamilton has tremendous ability but there are health concerns and he didn't hit lefties well. Votto projects as a good hitting first baseman, but perhaps not a powerhouse as one might want at first. Cueto probably has a good future but may not be that "projectable" since he doesn't have the classic frame.

All these guys are very good prospects, it would be nice to keep them, but for when? For a day in the future when maybe Harang, Arroyo and Dunn are gone?

At some point, you have to go for it. Maybe Bedard is the wrong choice, that's entirely possible, but Reds recent history shows that picking up guys nobody else wants isn't usually a way to have success.

Sometimes ya gotta roll the dice and take a chance.

[Aronchis]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Professional sports today is not a long-term business. You never know the mix of players you will have in three years. In three years, Adam Dunn may be gone, Griffey will be gone, and who knows if Harang will be a Red. And even if Dunn and Harang are still Reds, who knows if they will be healthy and productive that far in the future.

Stockpiling prospects today is, in part, a way to trade for veteran players. The problem here is that folks are in love with the projected future of young minor leaguers. But history shows that these things often don't pan out.

Bedard has two years left. If he then leaves, and if there is a need, the Reds can go into the free agent market and get another pitcher. Or maybe at that point the Reds will have other great pitchers, or maybe the team will be terrible and it won't make sense to replace Bedard.

All I know is that folks are exaggerating the value of these young kids. The only one who, to me, seems to have really extraordinary value is Bruce, who probably should be a keeper.

Bailey is a young pitcher who projects well but has command issues and "second and third pitch" issues. Hamilton has tremendous ability but there are health concerns and he didn't hit lefties well. Votto projects as a good hitting first baseman, but perhaps not a powerhouse as one might want at first. Cueto probably has a good future but may not be that "projectable" since he doesn't have the classic frame.

All these guys are very good prospects, it would be nice to keep them, but for when? For a day in the future when maybe Harang, Arroyo and Dunn are gone?

At some point, you have to go for it. Maybe Bedard is the wrong choice, that's entirely possible, but Reds recent history shows that picking up guys nobody else wants isn't usually a way to have success.

Wrong, it is definitely a long term business. I think the Cards are a team that are a good example of who had good long term business plans at the beginning of this decade and came wildly apart over recent years. Now they facing debt deflation(probably not as bad as the post-Schott/strike crisis in Reds history, but still deflation nevertheless) for those errors.

I don't want a 1-2 year window, I want a 7-10 year window.