Reds are being penny wise and dollar foolish!!!!!!!!

[red-in-la]

I thought I saw this John Fay article posted, but now I can't find it. Mods, if I screwed up, sorry, maybe you could fix it.

Anyway, according to Fay the O's have backed off Bruce and would be willing to take Bailey and Cueto and a couple of other prospects.......but that this price is still too high for the Reds.

I am really, really disappointed...:thumbdown :thumbdown

This is so wrong as to border on stupid.

As Fay, points out, the Reds now have 4 "highly regarded" pitchers under 24......so......do the deal and you still have 2 highly regarded pitchers under 24.

I think Reds fans should remember a time not THAT long ago when they had a similar bunch headed by, IIRC, Frank Pastore. Maybe somebody who knows how to look that sort of thing up couple help me with the rest of the names.

Anyway, Pastore was the only one that ever won anything.

No team is going to win anything with a rotation containing 4 pitchers all that young at the same time anyway. So even if these 4 were going to somehow eventually become good ML pitchers, by that time they will be too expensive AND the rest of the Reds' young core will be also.

Make the deal and then you can give Volquez and Maloney TIME to ease into being a PART of the rotation.

I just don't get this.....you get to hang onto Bruce and Votto and two good young pitching prospects and you also get to have a rotation that might be the best and deepest in the Division......but instead, WK sits on his hands? Awful.

Anyway, WK, give a Christmas present and make the deal for Bedard.....please!!!!!

[RedsManRick]

As was pointed out to me elsewhere, trades are a whole lot of posturing and a lot less actual face-to-face negotiation. What makes it's way to the papers and/or message boards is just as likely to be misleading as accurate.

I think it's certainly fair for any of us to the make the hypothetical case about why or not why a certain trade should be made. However, until the opportunity is definitively closed, it's premature to pass judgement on Krivsky. We don't really know where things stand.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Think about this: There is a good chance that one of Bailey and Cueto will end up being as good or better than Bedard eventually. Therefore, if you truly believe that (and I think the Reds' front office does) then why would you trade both of them, plus extra prospects, for Bedard?

Now you obviously think there is little chance of Bailey and Cueto ever reaching Bedard's level and I understand that point of view, but I also fully understand why the Reds are holding back. They are not going to give up TWO of their coveted young pitchers. They will give up one in order to get one back, but then the other prospects in the deal have to be position players (Votto, Stubbs, etc.).

[Kc61]

Probably the question comes down to whether the Reds will trade Bailey and Votto for Bedard. I think they would do Bailey and EE. But if the O's prefer Votto, would the Reds do this.

My guess is the board would be split on it. I would do it. Hatteberg and a righty guy (say Ensberg) could hold down first base. Hopper and Freel in center until Bruce is ready.

Thing is, the Reds have used an offense based formula and it doesn't work. I'd be willing to try a pitching based formula for awhile, even if the offense is weaker. So I'd live with trading Bailey and Votto for Bedard.

[George Anderson]

Originally Posted by red-in-la

I think Reds fans should remember a time not THAT long ago when they had a similar bunch headed by, IIRC, Frank Pastore. Maybe somebody who knows how to look that sort of thing up couple help me with the rest of the names.

Back in the early 80's the Reds were kinda high on Pastore, Bruce Berenyi, Charlie Liebrandt and Jeff Russell but they were in no way held in the same regard as the current four prospects are.

[Ga_Red]

so let me get this,

it's foolish not to trade two grade (2) A players
for one (1) grade A player whose salary is
roughly sixteen (16) times as much per year
for one-half (1/2) the possible appearances each
year, and who can leave the Reds four (4) years
before either of the two (2) grade a players we already have may do so? hmmmmmmmmmm

[OnBaseMachine]

There's no way I would deal Homer Bailey AND Johnny Cueto for Bedard. No way. And Votto is also now off the table due to the Hamilton trade. I would deal one of Bailey/Cueto plus lower prospects for Bedard IF they can sign him longterm.

I like the way Wayne is handling this.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by red-in-la

Anyway, according to Fay the O's have backed off Bruce and would be willing to take Bailey and Cueto and a couple of other prospects.......but that this price is still too high for the Reds.

It's an interesting dynamic that the Orioles have created -- there is, if you believe what you read, internal pressure on MacPhail to tear the O's down and rebuild. Tejada is already gone, Roberts looks to be heading out of town too. Really, it makes zero sense for the team to hold onto Bedard, since his value can really only decrease the closer he gets to free agency and the minute he starts throwing live pitches and risking injury.

The O's have chased off all their suitors except for the Reds and now, surprise surprise, they're backing off on the demands there too.

Even if, for some odd reason, you were inclined to ship BOTH Bailey and Cueto in the same deal -- why deal now? The Reds can match just about any deal out there if they want to play the trump card. If no one else is biting, why not see how desperate the O's are to dump Bedard? They've backed off on Bruce. Who is to say pressure from ownership doesn't get them down to JUST Bailey/Cueto and 2-3 other prospects?

As Fay, points out, the Reds now have 4 "highly regarded" pitchers under 24......so......do the deal and you still have 2 highly regarded pitchers under 24.

Bailey, Cueto and Volquez are all "highly regarded" but all have some warts showing. Maloney is well-liked, but my understanding is that he doesn't have the ceiling nor the hype of the former three.

Plus, when you're talking young pitching, you're fighting against the odds. It's like Sea Turtles -- they lay a crapload of eggs because the majority of the hatchlings never make it to the shore. If they laid 10 eggs, they might only have 1 survivor. They lay 100 eggs, the odds of having a couple offspring survive gets much higher.

If you want to build a rotation of kids, having more is always better because it decreases the chance of a total washout and nobody making a contribution on the active roster.

Bailey and Cueto were good bets to flame out before they hit their ceiling. Bailey, Cueto and Maloney? Odds a little better. Bailey, Cueto, Maloney, and Volquez? You might actually be getting to the point where it's even money that one hits the projected ceiling.

I just don't get this.....you get to hang onto Bruce and Votto and two good young pitching prospects and you also get to have a rotation that might be the best and deepest in the Division......but instead, WK sits on his hands? Awful.

Anyway, WK, give a Christmas present and make the deal for Bedard.....please!!!!!

For the first time in ages, it seems like the Reds have a GM with a plan and ownership on-board with that plan. After all the good moves Krivsky has made, I'm OK trusting him a little bit on this one. He didn't overbid on Bedard (yet), he didn't break the bank for a mediocre Carlos Silva, he's avoiding the correct targets and targeting (seemingly) the right ones.

Wait and see.

[redsmetz]

I think my son made an apt comment this morning when he saw Fay's column, "John Fay has a serious man crush on Erik Bedard." Fay has been playing little GM since the season ended. It's his sole purpose trying to justify his job with the Enquirer.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

There's no way I would deal Homer Bailey AND Johnny Cueto for Bedard. No way. And Votto is also now off the table due to the Hamilton trade. I would deal one of Bailey/Cueto plus lower prospects for Bedard IF they can sign him longterm.

I like the way Wayne is handling this.

Agree and that's a big IF.

[Will M]

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

There's no way I would deal Homer Bailey AND Johnny Cueto for Bedard. No way. And Votto is also now off the table due to the Hamilton trade. I would deal one of Bailey/Cueto plus lower prospects for Bedard IF they can sign him longterm.

I like the way Wayne is handling this.

I also agree.

Votto, Bailey & Cueto for two years of Bedard is absolutely nuts.

I would trade for Bedard if we could get him for Bailey OR Cueto plus some 'B' prospects and then sign him long term. If the Os don't want that then I am fine with playing for 2009 and beyond rather than selling the farm for two years of Bedard.

[Benihana]

I would do the Bailey OR Cueto deal with lower level prospects. No Votto and no to both pitchers in the deal. However unlike most on this thread, I would NOT be concerned about signing Bedard to an extension. Instead, I would use that money towards re-signing Adam Dunn, first.

[IslandRed]

Originally Posted by Benihana

I would do the Bailey OR Cueto deal with lower level prospects. No Votto and no to both pitchers in the deal. However unlike most on this thread, I would NOT be concerned about signing Bedard to an extension. Instead, I would use that money towards re-signing Adam Dunn, first.

I tend to agree with that... if we could get a Bedard deal done only including one top prospect, don't give them 72 hours to re-think. Do it before they change their minds and worry about an extension later.

[Reds1]

Actually, we have 3 starts in Har. Arroy, and Belise. We only need 2 more from either the young guys or another Blanton type guy. Right or wrong I don't think we'll be thrust into 3-4 young starters. Personally, I hope one can stick for the year and be effective. If 2 are ready and doing well that's a big bonus, but I don't know this guy we just got. I think Homer has a shot for 5 in the rotation. Again, not sure on Cuerto. Haven't seen much of him.

[red-in-la]

Without some change, you have the same rotation that ended a 90 loss season.

Why wouldn't you trade any number of PROSPECTS for an established starting pitcher? Established starting pitchers who have won 10 plus games for several years, and are still younger than 30 do not grow on trees.

This is just a no-brainer IMHO......