Morosi: Reds prioritizing the addition of a shortstop

[M2]

that's disingenuous as hell to suggest that downs/jeter had anything to do with the reds getting trevor bauer. yes, puig was a throw-in as part of the deal, but the real trade there was basically taylor trammell for trevor bauer straight up (from the reds' perspective; it was a 3-team deal as we all know). either you already know this and are intentionally being obtuse, or you need to brush up on your facts.

You mean aside from how they fetched part of what fetched Bauer they have no connection to the deal?

[JFLegal]

What's a top prospect? Seriously. What's the definition you're using on that? Because if it's anybody on your team's top 10 list, keeping them all is a terrible idea. You're closer to building a comedy routine than a baseball team if you go that route. If it's anybody inside a top 100 list, that's still not a great standard. Jose Peraza made top 100 lists and he sucks. Robert Stephenson and Cody Reed made top 100 lists.

So you're going to have to tell who these top prospects are. Feel free to name the current untouchables. I might even agree provided it's not a long list.

what small-market MLB team is successful when they trade top prospects for 1-year rentals? you answer me that question, and i will answer yours.

[Wonderful Monds]

what small-market MLB team is successful when they trade top prospects for 1-year rentals? you answer me that question, and i will answer yours.

Being a small market team is a self inflicted restriction, especially now that there’s a de facto salary cap in place. What the Indians and Rays do when it comes to paying players, or more accurately not paying them, is a disgrace and I hope the Reds never try to follow in their footsteps.

[M2]

what small-market MLB team is successful when they trade top prospects for 1-year rentals? you answer me that question, and i will answer yours.

The Kansas City Royals traded a pile of their top prospects (Wil Myers, Jake Odorizzi, Mike Montgomery) and set themselves up for a run the culminated with the 2015 World Series win. Traded Will Smith for a year of Nori Aoki. Traded Brandon Finnegan and Cody Reed for a few months of Johnny Cueto. Traded Sean Manaea for a rental on Ben Zobrist.

[MikeS21]

Everything within me screams against trading prospects for one-year rentals. Here's my problem with it: say you do trade India and Lodolo (and a couple other of your top 15 prospects) for one year of Lindor. Come next winter, Lindor is gone, you still have a hole at SS, and you do not have India or Lodolo as trade bait. Sure you might end up with a comp pick in the draft, but realistically, will that comp pick be any better than what you had in Lodolo or India? Are you truly any better off?

I am not against trading prospects. I just don't want to unload a bunch of prospects on one-year rental players. Sure, Kansas City may have made it work in 2015, but they have been playing catch-up ever since. I am not interested in sacrificing everything to win one year and struggling for the next ten years. If the Reds win one year, I want them to win the next year, and the years after that.

[Kc61]

The Kansas City Royals traded a pile of their top prospects (Wil Myers, Jake Odorizzi, Mike Montgomery) and set themselves up for a run the culminated with the 2015 World Series win. Traded Will Smith for a year of Nori Aoki. Traded Brandon Finnegan and Cody Reed for a few months of Johnny Cueto. Traded Sean Manaea for a rental on Ben Zobrist.

Myers, Odorizzi and Montgomery were traded for multi-year players, Shields (2 years as a Royal) and Wade Davis (4 years as a Royal).

And if the Reds are a potential WS champ at the deadline, a Cueto-type trade would make sense for that year.. Not sure that’s the current situation.

[M2]

Myers, Odorizzi and Montgomery were traded for multi-year players, Shields (2 years as a Royal) and Wade Davis (4 years as a Royal).

And if the Reds are a potential WS champ at the deadline, a Cueto-type trade would make sense for that year.. Not sure that’s the current situation.

I don't think there's a massive difference between two years of Shields and one (particularly if you're talking in terms of the necessity of affordable, controllable salaries), and he was the primary target in that deal. They kind of backed into Davis being a premium reliever after he tanked in the rotation in his first season with them. Also should be noted some counted Myers among the top prospects in all of baseball when they made that deal and the general take in the baseball media (especially among those who were Royals fans) was the Royals just made one of the worst trades in history. They spit in the eye of conventional wisdom with that deal.

And the 2015 Royals were a bit of a pythagorean mirage (as were the 2014 Royals). Again, conventional wisdom dictated they hold onto their prospects because the team's luck was due to run out. I suspect if the Royals have one regret it's that they didn't trade Kyle Zimmer and Bubba Starling too.

[REDREAD]

You mean aside from how they fetched part of what fetched Bauer they have no connection to the deal?

He's kind of got a point though.
Puig was just a side piece added on.
For example, the Reds traded Didi and Stubbs for Choo and Jason Donald in 2012.
No one is going to act as if the trade would not have happened if the Indians did not have Donald available.

Granted, Puig was more useful than Donald was, but the Bauer trade gets made even if the Reds did not have Puig.
In fact, the Indians may have prefered not to take Puig's salary on (I don't know for sure).

We have to be careful of not falling into the famous Jim Bowden rationalization where he said trading Paul O'neill was not so
bad because a chain of events over multiple trades happened where we eventually got Sean Casey. No, trading Paul O'neill
was a huge mistake. Just because an eventual descendant in that trade (I think Deion Sanders? ) was eventually sent to San Francisco to get Dave Burba when SF was doing a huge salary dump does not change the outcome of the O'neill trade.. it was bad.

Likewise, the Puig trade was a disaster. Even if the two prospects the Reds sent to LA wash out, it was still a bad trade. Maybe
not a disaster, but still a bad trade. But of course, every club makes some bad trades. That's not the main mistake that will hinder this club the next 3 years or so.

[Kc61]

I don't think there's a massive difference between two years of Shields and one (particularly if you're talking in terms of the necessity of affordable, controllable salaries), and he was the primary target in that deal. They kind of backed into Davis being a premium reliever after he tanked in the rotation in his first season with them. Also should be noted some counted Myers among the top prospects in all of baseball when they made that deal and the general take in the baseball media (especially among those who were Royals fans) was the Royals just made one of the worst trades in history. They spit in the eye of conventional wisdom with that deal.

And the 2015 Royals were a bit of a pythagorean mirage (as were the 2014 Royals). Again, conventional wisdom dictated they hold onto their prospects because the team's luck was due to run out. I suspect if the Royals have one regret it's that they didn't trade Kyle Zimmer and Bubba Starling too.

The issue is trading good prospects for one-year veterans. Your single example primarily includes a trade for multi-year veterans. All this explanation does not change that.

If the Reds keep trading good prospects for one-year vets, they will soon have neither (a) the traded prospects nor (b) the one-year vets who promptly depart. All will be gone. This strategy should be used very sparingly especially for a smaller market dependent on some cheaper contracts.

[RedTeamGo!]

He's kind of got a point though.
Puig was just a side piece added on.
For example, the Reds traded Didi and Stubbs for Choo and Jason Donald in 2012.
No one is going to act as if the trade would not have happened if the Indians did not have Donald available.

Granted, Puig was more useful than Donald was, but the Bauer trade gets made even if the Reds did not have Puig.
In fact, the Indians may have prefered not to take Puig's salary on (I don't know for sure).

We have to be careful of not falling into the famous Jim Bowden rationalization where he said trading Paul O'neill was not so
bad because a chain of events over multiple trades happened where we eventually got Sean Casey. No, trading Paul O'neill
was a huge mistake. Just because an eventual descendant in that trade (I think Deion Sanders? ) was eventually sent to San Francisco to get Dave Burba when SF was doing a huge salary dump does not change the outcome of the O'neill trade.. it was bad.

Likewise, the Puig trade was a disaster. Even if the two prospects the Reds sent to LA wash out, it was still a bad trade. Maybe
not a disaster, but still a bad trade. But of course, every club makes some bad trades. That's not the main mistake that will hinder this club the next 3 years or so.

The Indians absolutely wanted Puig. They needed an OF desperately for their playoff run.

[M2]

Puig was just a side piece added on.

Patently untrue. The Indians were in a playoff chase. They had rotation depth and they wanted to remake their OF. Puig was a regular in the middle of their lineup for the rest of the season. They turned Bauer into Puig and Franmil Reyes. And they were not moving Bauer solely for Reyes. Making the 2019 playoffs (and ultimately they didn't) was a big part of their aim in that deal.

[westofyou]

The Indians absolutely wanted Puig. They needed an OF desperately for their playoff run.

Yep and it still ended up being their Achilles heel this year, not pitching

[M2]

The issue is trading good prospects for one-year veterans. Your single example primarily includes a trade for multi-year veterans. All this explanation does not change that.

If the Reds keep trading good prospects for one-year vets, they will soon have neither (a) the traded prospects nor (b) the one-year vets who promptly depart. All will be gone. This strategy should be used very sparingly especially for a smaller market dependent on some cheaper contracts.

They made multiple trades of prospects for good-now players. They opened a vein to get two years of Shields. If you want to get pedantic about one year vs. two, that's not my concern. And the lesson is they didn't give up much in the way of good prospects. Outside of Manaea they didn't lose anyone worth shedding a tear over. Also, no one's saying trade all their prospects, but maybe use an ounce of discernment. They're not all magic, and the Reds ought to have a firm idea about which ones aren't.

[M2]

Yep and it still ended up being their Achilles heel this year, not pitching

Should have brought back Puig.

[mth123]

Am I the only one who thinks a SS is needed just to stay above .500."They need other changes as well IMO. They can't deal all their trade bait and max out the entiire payroll through one acquisition. They need to have rersources for other changes as well. That means no Lindor and probably no Story. Didi makes teh most sense to me, but even then they need to cut some payroll IMO so they can address other issues.