Remaining unsigned free agents

[AmarilloRed]

I might take a flyer with a 1 or 2 year deal for Pat Burrell.He hasn't played many games for a couple of years, but he could help the team if he is healthy-only 1 million last year for the Giants.I think it's worth taking a shot.

[Edd Roush]

Originally Posted by mth123

Major league deals:

Rich Harden
Luke Scott (Only if they can't get Seth Smith).
Eric Hinske (If no Smith or Scott)
Andruw Jones
Ryan Spilborgs (If they deal one of Stubbs or Heisey or can't get Jones)

Minor League Deals

One of these:
Jeremy Accardo
David Aardsma

One of these:
Aaron Cook
Doug Davis

One of These:
Damaso Marte
John Grabow

Rick Ankiel
Dioner Navarro

I like your list a lot. The only thing I would add to this list would be Ryan Madson. I have no idea what his price is so I couldn't tell you whether he would be worth it or not. I hate spending too much of the payroll on a guy who is only going to give you 60 innings, but those are likely the 60 most important pitching innings of the year and if he could be had for 10 mil a year or less, I would really like to see Madson in Cincinnati Red.

[corkedbat]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Reds should sign Ryan Madson. Nobody is running after this guy, Reds should be able to get him for three years, less than ten million per year. Madson, Latos, and Marshall transform this staff.

If Reds plan to go with four true outfielders, as I expect, they need a starter to go with Stubbs and Bruce. Don't love anyone on list. Crisp would be adequate in my book, I know others disagree. Others, like Andruw Jones, are interesting but at this point are likely backups. A trade is probably necessary unless they get Crisp.

Reds need a good backup middle infielder, particularly with a rookie SS. Don't see him on this list. I think they will need a trade or just go with Janish.

I doubt Reds will sign a starter like Edwin Jackson. But they could go for somebody like Harden who provide insurance and meanwhile help in pen or AAA.

Reds could also sign a FA catcher from this group, to hang out in Louisville.

Madson is said to be looking for 5yrs/$44M, but maybe about to come down in his asking price to 3yrs/$33M. If I'm the Reds, I'd offer 3 yrs/$30M with a club option for a 4th year at $12Mrigh now. Chances are though, if he comes down below 4 years, either the Red Sox or Angels with give him $11-12M per.

NOTE: I just thought of something. If you add Madson at $10M+ a season, it is really going to bounce up Marshall's asking price. I'd rather have Marshall, so I'd probably offer him the deal first.

[mth123]

The Reds simply can not afford a big dollar commitment in 2013. If Madson would sign for a 1 year and try again deal, the Reds should do it. But I think he can do better and the Reds simply can't match what other team's will offer. If they don't want to try Chapman or Marshall as the closer, they need to deal for a cheaper one. It probably means dealing one of Stubbs or Heisey along with some guys like Masset, Frazier and some kids. I have no real interest in Cordero.

I'd go with Chapman or Marshall myself. Nobody else needs to be dealt. Its money already spent and won't break the bank in 2013.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by corkedbat

Madson is said to be looking for 5yrs/$44M, but maybe about to come down in his asking price to 3yrs/$33M. If I'm the Reds, I'd offer 3 yrs/$30M with a club option for a 4th year at $12Mrigh now. Chances are though, if he comes down below 4 years, either the Red Sox or Angels with give him $11-12M per.

NOTE: I just thought of something. If you add Madson at $10M+ a season, it is really going to bounce up Marshall's asking price. I'd rather have Marshall, so I'd probably offer him the deal first.

5 yrs/$44M = $8.8M per year by my calculator.

But you're saying he might take......3 yrs/$33M = $11M per year? Gee, you think?

I don't get your comments. Was that a typo on the $44M?

[Vottomatic]

I really think we're going to have to trade Bailey and Chapman to fill our LF need. And then we'll have to sign a FA starting pitcher.

[lollipopcurve]

I'd go with Chapman or Marshall myself. Nobody else needs to be dealt. Its money already spent and won't break the bank in 2013.

Marshall. He's done it a little and likes it. Numbers indicate he's got the stuff, easily. It's also the best chance the team has of getting him to agree to an extension.
Save the dough for Cespedes.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Marshall. He's done it a little and likes it. Numbers indicate he's got the stuff, easily. It's also the best chance the team has of getting him to agree to an extension.
Save the dough for Cespedes.

I forgot about Cespedes. Reds need to go after him hard. I hate the other free agent OF options.

[Edd Roush]

Originally Posted by mth123

The Reds simply can not afford a big dollar commitment in 2013. If Madson would sign for a 1 year and try again deal, the Reds should do it. But I think he can do better and the Reds simply can't match what other team's will offer. If they don't want to try Chapman or Marshall as the closer, they need to deal for a cheaper one. It probably means dealing one of Stubbs or Heisey along with some guys like Masset, Frazier and some kids. I have no real interest in Cordero.

I'd go with Chapman or Marshall myself. Nobody else needs to be dealt. Its money already spent and won't break the bank in 2013.

Just playing devil's advocate and perhaps I am being too optimistic about 2012, but if the Reds make the playoffs in 2012 and have increased attendance and overall higher revenue in 2012, why couldn't the Reds have a slightly higher payroll (low 90s) in which they could afford Ryan Madson?

I just think the Reds will have an attendance around 2.5 million in 2012 and in turn, their revenue base will allow for a higher payroll. Furthermore, if we are "in it" while Votto is here, and Castellini does care about winning, why couldn't we afford Madson (who is a clear upgrade) and increase the payroll accordingly?

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by mth123

The Reds simply can not afford a big dollar commitment in 2013. If Madson would sign for a 1 year and try again deal, the Reds should do it. But I think he can do better and the Reds simply can't match what other team's will offer. If they don't want to try Chapman or Marshall as the closer, they need to deal for a cheaper one. It probably means dealing one of Stubbs or Heisey along with some guys like Masset, Frazier and some kids. I have no real interest in Cordero.

I'd go with Chapman or Marshall myself. Nobody else needs to be dealt. Its money already spent and won't break the bank in 2013.

I do not accept the premise that the Reds are tapped out financially, for 2012 or 2013.

They have not increased their payroll at all through acquisitions this off season. They added Marshall, but gave up Volquez.

If the premise is that salary increases to current Reds is all they can afford, then ownership should dump the team. The Reds as a major league franchise should be able to incrementally add new player salaries in years they are competitive.

They dropped two major salaries. Cordero and Hernandez. Reds should add some salary back in for new players.

Madson at $8 million per or slightly more for three years is much less in the aggregate than the Reds paid Cordero to close.

If Madson commands $11-12 million per year or so, I could see the Reds dropping out. But the press reports suggest he may have to take less than he wanted, which I read to mean maybe below ten per.

I mean, if you are trying to win, then really try.

[Ron Madden]

Everyone wants to go after Madson and sign Votto, Phillips and Marshall to extensions. That money has to come from somewhere, but where?

[lollipopcurve]

If the premise is that salary increases to current Reds is all they can afford, then ownership should dump the team. The Reds as a major league franchise should be able to incrementally add new player salaries in years they are competitive.

Agreed. If it's really about winning. Working the trade market with top prospects is not a sustainable strategy for fielding a competitive team.

[membengal]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I do not accept the premise that the Reds are tapped out financially, for 2012 or 2013.

They have not increased their payroll at all through acquisitions this off season. They added Marshall, but gave up Volquez.

If the premise is that salary increases to current Reds is all they can afford, then ownership should dump the team. The Reds as a major league franchise should be able to incrementally add new player salaries in years they are competitive.

They dropped two major salaries. Cordero and Hernandez. Reds should add some salary back in for new players.

Madson at $8 million per or slightly more for three years is much less in the aggregate than the Reds paid Cordero to close.

If Madson commands $11-12 million per year or so, I could see the Reds dropping out. But the press reports suggest he may have to take less than he wanted, which I read to mean maybe below ten per.

I mean, if you are trying to win, then really try.

Hear frickin' hear.

Just absolutely spot on in all respects.

[Edd Roush]

Originally Posted by Ron Madden

Everyone wants to go after Madson and sign Votto, Phillips and Marshall to extensions. That money has to come from somewhere, but where?

I am going to go ahead and answer your rhetorical question.

I see no reason why the Reds' revenue cannot increase marginally over the next several years. The Reds will never have a top-10 attendance due to a smaller ballpark that limits ticket sales on big weekends and Opening Day and the fact that the Reds' fan base is so dispersed that weekday games become difficult for most of the Reds' fans to attend.

That being said, attendance will increase if the Reds become a 90+ win team. The increase in attendance will raise revenues for obviously ticket sales, but also merchandise & food sales. The Reds should be able to support a payroll in the 90s.

Is a payroll in the 90s enough to sign Votto, Phillips & Marshall to an extension while also signing Madson? Likely not. That being said. Madson would be affordable in 2012 if we do have $12 M left in the budget and moves can be made in 2013 & 2014 to keep a top-level reliever around.

If we are really "going for it" in 2012, let's go all-in. Let's sign another hammer to the back of the bullpen and try to make most close leads after 7 innings a given W.

[membengal]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Agreed. If it's really about winning. Working the trade market with top prospects is not a sustainable strategy for fielding a competitive team.

Also spot on.