Time to blow it up!

[MM83]

There seem to be two camps on how to build the Reds. But the Reds, for better or worse, seem to have chosen their path for now. It’s a mixture of acquiring veterans and continuing to focus on prospects. It does not maximize either approach: prospects will be traded, there will be limits on veteran acquisitions.

As far back as 2013 - when Ludwick was not replaced after injury - the Reds have avoided big ticket MLB acquisitions. That is, until this past off-season, and then the response was somewhat tepid because they focused on trading Bailey.

IMO it’s an advance that Reds seem poised to sign or trade for a few upper echelon veterans, perhaps to multi-year contracts. They aren’t neglecting the farm system, they have modernized, they have hired top notch coaches. I really can’t fault the approach, particularly looking at it from a business perspective (keeping the fan base).

At the end of the day the big question is not the approach to building - it’s talent evaluation, looking forward not backward. On this, the Reds need to improve, I think that’s a universally held view, and IMO it’s where the focus should be going forward.

Upper echelon veterans are not going to sign to play in Cincinnati.

Small market. 25 year laughingstock franchises are not desirable. The players have a choice

[Sea Ray]

There seem to be two camps on how to build the Reds. But the Reds, for better or worse, apparently have chosen their path for now. It’s a mixture of acquiring veterans and continuing to focus on prospects. It does not maximize either approach: prospects will be traded, there will be limits on veteran acquisitions.

As far back as 2013 - when Ludwick was not replaced after injury - the Reds have avoided big ticket MLB acquisitions. That is, until this past off-season, and then the response was somewhat tepid because they focused on trading Bailey.

IMO it’s an advance that Reds seem poised to sign or trade for a few upper echelon veterans, perhaps to multi-year contracts. They aren’t neglecting the farm system, they have modernized, they have hired top notch coaches. I really can’t fault the approach, particularly looking at it from a business perspective (keeping the fan base).

At the end of the day the big question is not the approach to building - it’s talent evaluation, looking forward not backward. On this, the Reds need to improve, I think that’s a universally held view, and IMO it’s where the focus should be going forward.

Better or worse? To this point the answer's worse. They need to be very careful in trading prospects. Rarely trade top 100 guys or guys who will become top 100 and that gets into talent evaluation. They severely underestimated the guys they traded. Furthermore trade from an area of strength. LHP (Moss) and SS (Downs) was not a strength in the organization. Shed Long was a position of strength so I had no problem with that

[Kc61]

Upper echelon veterans are not going to sign to play in Cincinnati.

Small market. 25 year laughingstock franchises are not desirable. The players have a choice

Only with free agency do players have a choice, not if you make opportunistic trades taking on salary other teams want to shed.

As for free agents, at this stage, with a non-contending team, Reds may need to offer an extra year or some other inducement. Many FAs are fighting for an extra contract year and such an offer can be very persuasive.

Eventually, if Reds are keep improving, they might be able to attract some FAs without such an inducement. Now probably they will need to offer it.

[Sea Ray]

You seem nice.

No, they are not. This team went 90-95 losses for four years holding onto "prospects" and acquiring "prospects". That way was proven to be a 90-95 loss approach. And if they did nothing and stayed the course with those "prospects" they lose 90-95 again. That's because NOT EVERY PROSPECT is good. Or even most of them. Hopefully a few are. The good teams churn prospects and add talent. For year (four years actually) they refused to try. This year they tried. Because the Reds appear to be cursed (and perhaps the Cincinnati curse and what not) the churn will leave them in roughly the same place. You posit that they are worse off because they don't have, in essence Downs and Jeter. Perhaps. Perhaps THOSE were the two who would actually come through the system smoothly and be amazing. But history says that was unlikely. For whatever reason, this team doesn't develop players like, say, the Dodgers do. Hell, look to Trammell, who also was starting to accelerate backwards in terms of prospect status in this organization.

In any event, they tried something different, and with respect to W/L record, it didn't get much better. That is genuinely sucky. But that doesn't mean the effort should not have been made. In my opinion.

If the Reds don't start developing talent then they have no chance. Even the Yankees need to develop talent and they have, hence they're in 1st place. It's even more important for the Reds to develop talent. Since they seem to struggle in this area, it behooves them to improve their chances by acquiring more minor league talent rather than less

[Sea Ray]

Only with free agency do players have a choice, not if you make opportunistic trades taking on salary other teams want to shed.

As for free agents, at this stage, with a non-contending team, Reds may need to offer an extra year or some other inducement. Many FAs are fighting for an extra contract year and such an offer can be very persuasive.

"An extra year" leaves you with Homer Bailey and Brandon Phillips type problems. Some here have opined that "one extra year" of Homer Bailey was worth trading two very good prospects. Stuff like that makes "that extra year" very painful indeed

[Kc61]

"An extra year" leaves you with Homer Bailey and Brandon Phillips type problems. Some here have opined that "one extra year" of Homer Bailey was worth trading two very good prospects. Stuff like that makes "that extra year" very painful indeed

Untrue. Homer was signed for over $100 million for what, five years or more. FA these days seldom involves that. The contracts are mostly shorter.

Yasmani Grandal got one year from Milwaukee and took it. It’s only one example. The market - in terms of contract years - has changed except for the Machados and Harpers.

The Reds simply cannot cut off a whole segment of the market. They will never compete with the top teams if they are endlessly rebuilding with youth waiting for the stars to align. They need a more varied approach to player acquisition.

[GAC]

This isn’t even controversial

90-95 loss teams can’t trade their top prospects for short term rentals that will add a few wins.

It’s basic math and logic. The ppl saying otherwise are trolling

Even logic says it goes far beyond basic math. It's a discussion forum. The fact that some disagree with you is not trolling (LOL).

[MM83]

Only with free agency do players have a choice, not if you make opportunistic trades taking on salary other teams want to shed.

As for free agents, at this stage, with a non-contending team, Reds may need to offer an extra year or some other inducement. Many FAs are fighting for an extra contract year and such an offer can be very persuasive.

Eventually, if Reds are keep improving, they might be able to attract some FAs without such an inducement. Now probably they will need to offer it.

You are advocating for the reds to trade more prospects for more short term veterans?

To what? Win 77 games?

[Kc61]

You are advocating for the reds to trade more prospects for more short term veterans?

To what? Win 77 games?

I am advocating a varied approach. Player development, acquisitions, including some on the higher end. Please read the posts which are clear.

[MM83]

I am advocating a varied approach. Player development, acquisitions, including some on the higher end. Please read the posts which are clear.

They are 20 more wins away from contention

That’s not going to happen anytime soon via free agency

[757690]

Why would I get banned? I joined last week.

Once again. Really bad teams can’t trade their best prospects for short term rentals.

This isn’t mean or controversial. It’s just the way it is. You should be mad at the reds. Not me

The Reds didn’t trade their best prospects for short term rentals. They traded their second level prospects for short term rentals.

And the math isn’t looking as bad as you say.

They traded Tanner Rainey for Tsnner Roark. Roark provided 2 fWAR in half a season, then was traded for a prospect better than Rainey.

They traded Shed Long and a draft pick for 4 seasons of Sonny Gray. Gray has put up 4 fWAR so far this season. They have him for three more seasons.

They traded Jeter Downs and Josiah Gray for Puig and Wood (basically). Puig and Trammel were turned into one plus year of Bauer.

So the Reds have already received 6 fWAR of production from the players traded for, and have one full year of Bauer and three full seasons of a Gray left.

I am not sure Trammell, j, Gray, Downs, Rainey and Long will put up 5 fWAR in their MLB careers. Standard odds for prospects say they won’t. And a I think it’s conservative to say that Gray and Bauee will end up providing more fWAR in the future.

I understand your frustration that the team isn’t as improved as you’d like it to be. But those trades of prospects. For short term rentals has worked out well so far. Those trades are not the reason why the Reds are under .500 right now. Those trades are likely the main reason why the Reds have improved this season from last.

[GAC]

If the Reds don't start developing talent then they have no chance.

When did they stop developing talent? If trading away a Trammell (whose stock is falling), along with some level level prospects (Day, Gray), as well as a tier 4 prospect (Moss), is emptying this farm system .... then, IMO, this farm system was in deep trouble to begin with. Fortunately, I don't think it is.

The issue, as it is with a lot of teams, is developing enough prospects for positions of need (whether it be a pitcher, SS, 2B, etc). You give it your best shot, put forth your best effort, but it's still a crap-shoot. That's when you look for "partners" who may supply your shortage via their "abundance" (and visa-versa).

JMO ... but the only way one can say trading the above prospects was bad is if they actually make it. Then one can come back and say I told you so. Not holding my breath there (LOL).

[Sea Ray]

Untrue. Homer was signed for over $100 million for what, five years or more. FA these days seldom involves that. The contracts are mostly shorter.

Yasmani Grandal got one year from Milwaukee and took it. It’s only one example. The market - in terms of contract years - has changed except for the Machados and Harpers.

The Reds simply cannot cut off a whole segment of the market. They will never compete with the top teams if they are endlessly rebuilding with youth waiting for the stars to align. They need a more varied approach to player acquisition.

No, my comment on one year and my examples were absolutely true. We dealt Bailey in order to get rid of one yr. We ended up eating one yr of Phillips contract. Your points are tangent to mine

[Sea Ray]

When did they stop developing talent? If trading away a Trammell (whose stock is falling), along with some level level prospects (Day, Gray), as well as a tier 4 prospect (Moss), is emptying this farm system .... then, IMO, this farm system was in deep trouble to begin with. Fortunately, I don't think it is.

The issue, as it is with a lot of teams, is developing enough prospects for positions of need (whether it be a pitcher, SS, 2B, etc). You give it your best shot, put forth your best effort, but it's still a crap-shoot. That's when you look for "partners" who may supply your shortage via their "abundance" (and visa-versa).

JMO ... but the only way one can say trading the above prospects was bad is if they actually make it. Then one can come back and say I told you so. Not holding my breath there (LOL).

Stop developing talent? They need to start doing it better. Prior to this year, when was the last significant contributor that the Reds "developed"? You can't go with such a dry spell. To their credit this has been a productive yr for rookies and that's largely why their record improved this year and not their deals for one yr rentals

[GAC]

Stop developing talent?

You said (LOL) ...

If the Reds don't start developing talent then they have no chance.

Prior to this year, when was the last significant contributor that the Reds "developed"?

How far can we go back? Because in the last 10+ years they have either developed talent or acquired young talent/top prospects that they developed further and contributed to this team... Dunn, Votto, Cueto, Bruce, Harang, Phillips, Cozart, etc.

You can't go with such a dry spell.

The reason for the "dry spell" was because of the rebuild and in the midst of the developmental stage with prospects like Castillo, Winker, Suarez, Senzel, Mahle, and others. In '19 they started showing some fruit on the tree.