Looking to Reds November Player Moves

[Kc61]

I'm sure they can't trade Moose. They may as well cut him if only to open a 40 man spot. As for Farmer, they may as well keep him. He can play 3rd and go back to SS if Barrero can't hit. He's not going to be expensive. I see the logic in letting him go but I wouldn't do it.

Reds can certainly trade Moose by relinquishing some assets along with him. Krall has said he doesn’t want to do that, certainly not with prospects. But Krall isn’t an owner and ultimately they pay the bills.

Reds have done it before (Homer Bailey deal) and I’m confident they have explored it. Whether there’s a deal they can swallow I’d don’t know, but they’ve shown a deep concern about payroll and Moose’s guarantee is $22 million.

As for Farmer, of course fans don’t want to do it. But $6 million appears to be meaningful to them right now - whether or not justifiable - and Steer can play third. I’d guess they’ve explored this too.

[Kc61]

Here is some information and key dates to get you ready for the Reds' Hot Stove season:
story here:
https://view.mail.mlblists.com/messa...f54ad00fed/raw

These dates are slightly different from mine, probably updated from Cots’ calendar. I’d note though that the Winter Meetings are scheduled to begin December 4 in San Diego, as reflected on the MLB.com site. Rule five draft is usually the last day, the 7th, and the Draft Lottery is rumored to be the 6th.

[InsaneinthBrame]

Reds may non-tender some guys or make minor trades to deal some. But I expect they’ve spent most effort trying to deal Moose. That’s where the real money is. And as a backup, I expect they’ve discussed Farmer, due for about $6 million. Not saying they’ll find deals.

Teams don’t like to spend on non-contending seasons. I don’t believe Reds are finished cost cutting. Especially since they’ll have to add some stop gaps just to get through the season.

I do not get the hand wringing over Farmers salary for Reds. He is a league average SS. The Reds do spend money see Pham Solano signings and trade for Minor. They just do not spend wisely. They also non tendered 0 players last year.

Krall main goal is to put best team on field under the budget that ownership gives him. As far as I can tell ownership has not gone all Pirates Rays yet. they still had 115M payroll this past year.

[Bourgeois Zee]

I just don't share your belief, KC, that the Reds are so focused on dealing Moustakas in order to save money that they'd tie a prospect to him to get rid of him.

Four reasons:
1. They've not really done this type of deal before.
You point to the Bailey deal, but that wasn't to sell Bailey; it was adding significant payroll to the Reds. The Reds took on real talent-- Wood, Puig, Kemp, and Farmer-- in the hopes of competing in the ML Central. (That Wood got injured and largely torpedoed those plans is irrelevant, but irritating.) I can't think of another deal wherein they were willing to add prospects to get out from under a massive deal. They have certainly taken far less than what a player was worth, but not, IIRC, added prospects of their own.

2. Their payroll is quite low already.
If they acquire no one of substance, Cincinnati's payroll projects to be around $60M. 2004 was the lowest (based on rankings with other teams) in the last 20 years, when they ranked 24th in baseball in payroll. Even that payroll was more than $60M. You'd have to go all the way back to 2006-- more than 15 years. Remember too, they receive a substantial amount of cash from revenue sharing-- plenty of cash to afford Moustakas. (They could afford a team of Moustakases based on what the Reds actually make.) They've hardly ever been a team that's cut its payroll to the bone-- I don't think they'd do that now.

3. PR and attendance would take a massive hit.
After last season, I assume Red management is smart enough to realize that what they're selling isn't popular. Tying a prospect to Moustakas could be a pretty massive hit to what meager interest there is in this team. It would become a media circus-- and the main focus from talking heads wouldn't be the incoming talent, but the cheapness of ownership. That negatively affects the bottom line-- perhaps moreso than just releasing Moustakas for nothing. Speaking of...

4. They have a history of releasing expensive, bad players.
Last year, they let Shogo go instead of tying him to a prospect. He was both expensive and bad, similar to Moustakas. Other less expensive players-- Noe Ramirez, Cam Bedrosian, Pedro Strop, Derek Dietrich, Matt Kemp-- were also released instead of tied to good players. In short, they have a history of just letting bad contracts go as sunk costs.

This isn't to say that it's iron-clad that they'll release Moustakas. They could certainly do it tomorrow. But if they do, it'd be the first time since I don't know when. I think it's much more likely that they add $25-$40M in free agency to keep that Opening Day salary level around $100M. In doing so, they can add free agents (or trade acquisitions) who might end up as trade chips, thereby improving the talent level in the minor leagues.

[Kc61]

[QUOTE=InsaneinthBrame;4484483

Krall main goal is to put best team on field under the budget that ownership gives him.[/QUOTE]



Is that how you see the dynamic? Ownership gives Krall a budget and he then picks the roster? Not me, I believe Reds ownership has a far more active role.

When arb projections came out, Farmer’s number at $6 million was by far the highest. Not many ways remain to cut salary, I’m confident Reds have given thought whether to pay it or trade him. Whether a deal is feasible, don’t know, but I’m confident it’s been considered.

[Kc61]

I just don't share your belief, KC, that the Reds are so focused on dealing Moustakas in order to save money that they'd tie a prospect to him to get rid of him.

Four reasons:
1. They've not really done this type of deal before.
You point to the Bailey deal, but that wasn't to sell Bailey; it was adding significant payroll to the Reds. The Reds took on real talent-- Wood, Puig, Kemp, and Farmer-- in the hopes of competing in the ML Central. (That Wood got injured and largely torpedoed those plans is irrelevant, but irritating.) I can't think of another deal wherein they were willing to add prospects to get out from under a massive deal. They have certainly taken far less than what a player was worth, but not, IIRC, added prospects of their own.

2. Their payroll is quite low already.
If they acquire no one of substance, Cincinnati's payroll projects to be around $60M. 2004 was the lowest (based on rankings with other teams) in the last 20 years, when they ranked 24th in baseball in payroll. Even that payroll was more than $60M. You'd have to go all the way back to 2006-- more than 15 years. Remember too, they receive a substantial amount of cash from revenue sharing-- plenty of cash to afford Moustakas. (They could afford a team of Moustakases based on what the Reds actually make.) They've hardly ever been a team that's cut its payroll to the bone-- I don't think they'd do that now.

3. PR and attendance would take a massive hit.
After last season, I assume Red management is smart enough to realize that what they're selling isn't popular. Tying a prospect to Moustakas could be a pretty massive hit to what meager interest there is in this team. It would become a media circus-- and the main focus from talking heads wouldn't be the incoming talent, but the cheapness of ownership. That negatively affects the bottom line-- perhaps moreso than just releasing Moustakas for nothing. Speaking of...

4. They have a history of releasing expensive, bad players.
Last year, they let Shogo go instead of tying him to a prospect. He was both expensive and bad, similar to Moustakas. Other less expensive players-- Noe Ramirez, Cam Bedrosian, Pedro Strop, Derek Dietrich, Matt Kemp-- were also released instead of tied to good players. In short, they have a history of just letting bad contracts go as sunk costs.

This isn't to say that it's iron-clad that they'll release Moustakas. They could certainly do it tomorrow. But if they do, it'd be the first time since I don't know when. I think it's much more likely that they add $25-$40M in free agency to keep that Opening Day salary level around $100M. In doing so, they can add free agents (or trade acquisitions) who might end up as trade chips, thereby improving the talent level in the minor leagues.

The Bailey trade was broader, yes, but the principle was the same. Move a major unwanted contract by sweetening with prospects. In that case, the Reds took on Dodger trade assets, but the deal hinged on the Reds relinquishing valuable assets with Homer’s contract.

As for the rest of it, I think you’re underscoring my point - since Reds would certainly not release Moose without fully exploring any conceivable trade that might be less painful financially. And I’m confident ownership would want that effort to be thorough even if not fruitful. I believe they likely have been engaged in that effort.

[Bourgeois Zee]

The Bailey trade was broader, yes, but the principle was the same. Move a major unwanted contract by sweetening with prospects. In that case, the Reds took on Dodger trade assets, but the deal hinged on the Reds relinquishing valuable assets with Homer’s contract.

They didn't move Bailey to move an unwanted contract-- they moved Bailey to balance the contracts coming back.

That's a massive difference.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the rest of it, I think you’re underscoring my point - since Reds would certainly not release Moose without fully exploring any conceivable trade that might be less painful financially. And I’m confident ownership would want that effort to be thorough even if not fruitful. I believe they likely have been engaged in that effort.

Well, sure. Duh. They're looking to deal Moustakas. They did last year too, if reports can be believed. That they didn't pull the trigger then suggests they won't do it now. It's just not how they have ever operated in the past.

Last year, they did release Shogo after searching for deals. They didn't tie him to a prospect. They just released him. Why wouldn't they do the same with Moose?

[InsaneinthBrame]

Is that how you see the dynamic? Ownership gives Krall a budget and he then picks the roster? Not me, I believe Reds ownership has a far more active role.

When arb projections came out, Farmer’s number at $6 million was by far the highest. Not many ways remain to cut salary, I’m confident Reds have given thought whether to pay it or trade him. Whether a deal is feasible, don’t know, but I’m confident it’s been considered.

Yes, I believe he for the most part picks the roster but big moves need to be approved by ownership. Ownership has veto power or directives.
I think in the past Castellini would have blocked the Gray Winker Suarez Mahle and Castillo trades

Why do you assume they are cutting salary like Farmers? The payroll has already been cut because of FA leaving.

Reds have 45M in committed salary (2 players)
Arb salaries K Farmer 5.9 Cessa 2.6 Tj Antone .8 Aquino 1.6 Senzel 2.2 Sims 1.3 Hoffman 1.2 Dunn 1.1 B Farmer 1.4 That is 18.1 M for 9 players (mlb trade rumors numbers)
Non arb leaves 15 players at 700K for 10.5M

45+18.1+10.5=73.6M is what our playroll will be if we tender all players. That is a huge payroll slash from last year.

[Kc61]

They didn't move Bailey to move an unwanted contract-- they moved Bailey to balance the contracts coming back.

That's a massive difference.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, sure. Duh. They're looking to deal Moustakas. They did last year too, if reports can be believed. That they didn't pull the trigger then suggests they won't do it now. It's just not how they have ever operated in the past.

Last year, they did release Shogo after searching for deals. They didn't tie him to a prospect. They just released him. Why wouldn't they do the same with Moose?

Disagree about Bailey. At the time his contract was a drain and Reds wanted to dump it. That was a driving force for the trade.

Reds may release Moose, though much more $ at stake than Shogo. I’m saying they surely would explore trades first, and do so in depth.

[Bourgeois Zee]

Disagree about Bailey. At the time his contract was a drain and Reds wanted to dump it. That was a driving force for the trade.

The trade was salary-neutral, KC.

[mth123]

I think the Reds will actually release Moose at some point, but this thread is about November moves and I don't think they'll do it then. They'll try to find a taker all winter and release him in Spring training when he shows up huge and barely able to move.

There is plenty of chaff to create 40 man roster room and relatively few players who need to be added from the minors (Marte, De LA Cruz, Williamson and Stoudt are they guys they'd risk losing in rule 5). My guess is they'll cut a lot of chaff but won't be ready to eat Moose' contract this early in the off-season.

The bigger questions for me are Sims, Hoffman, Senzel and Aquino. All are guys I'd move off the roster before the date to finalize the 40 man. Vlad is another question, He's likely going to spend most of 2023 on the IL. They can't leave him on the 60 day all winter. Do they move him off the 40 man (or is that not even possible)? They need to pay him major league money as a major leaguer who was IL, so I guess he stays as a waste of a spot.

[Kc61]

The trade was salary-neutral, KC.

Makes no difference. The principle is the same. Bailey was only tradable by attaching assets. Reds saw Bailey as unproductive. Dodgers waived him. Required other Reds assets to enable the trade.

[Bourgeois Zee]

Makes no difference.

It makes a huge difference if your claim is that they're looking to cut the payroll, man.

[InsaneinthBrame]

I think the Reds will actually release Moose at some point, but this thread is about November moves and I don't think they'll do it then. They'll try to find a taker all winter and release him in Spring training when he shows up huge and barely able to move.

There is plenty of chaff to create 40 man roster room and relatively few players who need to be added from the minors (Marte, De LA Cruz, Williamson and Stoudt are they guys they'd risk losing in rule 5). My guess is they'll cut a lot of chaff but won't be ready to eat Moose' contract this early in the off-season.

The bigger questions for me are Sims, Hoffman, Senzel and Aquino. All are guys I'd move off the roster before the date to finalize the 40 man. Vlad is another question, He's likely going to spend most of 2023 on the IL. They can't leave him on the 60 day all winter. Do they move him off the 40 man (or is that not even possible)? They need to pay him major league money as a major leaguer who was IL, so I guess he stays as a waste of a spot.

I think Vlad is a 40 man place holder for a NRI catcher. He goes on the 60 in spring and the catcher becomes part of the 40 man roster. That is what a smart GM would do IMO.

There should not be an issue tendering anyone because if you release them before the end of spring training you do not owe them any money.

Moves they really should make is try to make a trade with the Rays who have 19 arbitration eligible players. They would want to trade guys they want to non-tender. Arozarena (super two) would be first on my list I am hearing here in Tampa he is on the trade block. A couple of the bullpen arms would also be upgrades. (3-4 of the arms are project not to make 25 man)

[Kc61]

It makes a huge difference if your claim is that they're looking to cut the payroll, man.

The principle is that you can move a large, unproductive contract if you attach value, such as prospects.

The situations may have differences, but that is the underlying concept in both.