Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >

Reds and Ludwick agree to deal

Posted: 12/4/2012 10:47 PM

Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


@Jim_Duquette: Ludwick deal with Cincinnati is likely 2 @ 14 mil

twitter.com/jim_duquette/status/276168050049441792
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/4/2012 11:36 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


If thats $7 per year then awesome.

If that is a per season number, then no.


Assuming that given the budget only $7 could be possible, so I think this is a win (especially in a market where Gomes gets 2/10
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/4/2012 11:52 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Now he is saying that the deal is not done.

Last edited 12/4/2012 11:53 PM by RDriesenUD

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/7/2012 5:51 PM

Re: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Reds To Sign Ryan Ludwick

By Ben Nicholson-Smith [December 7 at 4:07pm CST]

The Reds agreed to sign Ryan Ludwick, Jon Heyman of CBSSports.com reports (on Twitter). John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer first reported the Reds were making progress toward a deal with the BHSC client.

The Reds made the free agent outfielder a two-year two-year offer earlier in the week, but Fay reported that at least one other club was being more aggressive on Ludwick. The 34-year-old posted a .275/.346/.531 batting line with 26 home runs in 472 plate appearances for the Reds this past season.

Ludwick ranked 26th on MLBTR's list of top 50 free agents with MLBTR's Tim Dierkes correctly predicting that he would re-sign with the Reds.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/7/2012 7:44 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Ludwick deal is 2 years, with a mutual option. Not sure on the money. #reds

twitter.com/johnfayman/status/277206632914632704
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/7/2012 8:26 PM

Re: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


I like it...if it is under $14 for 2 years...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 1:06 AM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Good deal. The guy will play well and put up solid numbers. With BP, Votto, and Frazier, we're not going to need him to carry this team. Him and Bruce can swing for the fences and just play some decent defense out there and we will be a good team. 

Now we need to fix that leadoff spot.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 10:12 AM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Looks good to me.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/8/2012 11:04 AM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Heyman is reporting on Twitter deal is for 2/$15M...

https://twitter.com/JonHeymanC...441089634447361

I can deal with that for sure
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/8/2012 11:49 AM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


It isn't exactly what I wanted, but I am more than okay with it.  I don't expect him to hit for the same average, but hopefully he continues to hit for the same power.


OhioRaiderNation wrote: Heyman is reporting on Twitter deal is for 2/$15M...

https://twitter.com/JonHeymanC...441089634447361

I can deal with that for sure
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 11:53 AM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Among the Reds top 20 prospects, the corner outfielder closest to the majors played in Dayton last season.  Ludwick provides a two-year bridge to young guys like Kyle Waldrop and Jesse Winker.

The two-year, $15M contract indicates not only that the Reds like what Ludwick gave them last season, it also indicates that they feel he's the type of player they want in this organization going forward. 

I get the sense that with this management group, it's not ONLY about numbers and production, it's also about the intangibles that he brings to the table.  Effort, aggressiveness, and being the type of teammate and human being you want as a role model for our younger players - a guy who represents the Reds well. As a fan since the 60's, that's the type of player I want to see in this organization.

The trade for Scott Rolen was the first indicator of the type of player Castellini and Walt want for the Reds, and Ludwick is the latest.  If you recall who Walt quickly jettisoned when he took GM control, it shows the type of players/people he DID NOT want here. (Dunn, Griffey & their recliners)

Nobody knows how much production we'll get from Ludwick, but I'm glad we've got him. I believe that he's a good fit, and we'll get all he's got.


Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/8/2012 12:51 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Baseball, for all the obsession over stats, requires much more than just numbers to actually make a winning team.

Guys like Ludwick, Rolen, Hanigan, Cairo, and potentially Hannahan, are thought to contribute more than just their "stats". The hardest part, imo, for a GM is how to quantify these intangible qualities in a player -- and how to compensate the player fairly for them.

IIRC, the great recent WS winning Yankee teams (of Joe Torre era) never had a guy hit more than 25 hrs. The past 2 WS winning Giant teams certainly never held a statistical advantage over their playoff opponents.

It was always the reason I felt Adam Dunn was a losing player. Yes, he compiled stats over a 162 game season, but recall when he went like a whole friggin year without a sac fly? Give me the guy who will hit the ball to the right side of infield with man on 2nd and less than 2 outs; give me the guy who will lift a fly ball for the sac fly rather than K 3 out of 4 times in that situation.

I think the Reds have some potentially great players (Votto, Bruce, and BP to a lesser extent). I like that Jock appears to be adding winning players, or at least properly utilized role players, to surround these stars. This ain't fantasy baseball where everything is simple math -- we need guys willing to scrifice to win. I like it so far...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/8/2012 1:11 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


I wholeheartly agree about the sacrifice for the team....I have never and WILL never understand the argument that some 'new school' baseball analysts try to make that an out is an out.    I will never understand how a sac fly that produces a run is the same as a strike out which moves no one.  I'm with you, give me the guy that will put himself out to better the team, over the guy that only cares about his own stat sheet
TauBag94 wrote: Baseball, for all the obsession over stats, requires much more than just numbers to actually make a winning team.

Guys like Ludwick, Rolen, Hanigan, Cairo, and potentially Hannahan, are thought to contribute more than just their "stats". The hardest part, imo, for a GM is how to quantify these intangible qualities in a player -- and how to compensate the player fairly for them.

IIRC, the great recent WS winning Yankee teams (of Joe Torre era) never had a guy hit more than 25 hrs. The past 2 WS winning Giant teams certainly never held a statistical advantage over their playoff opponents.

It was always the reason I felt Adam Dunn was a losing player. Yes, he compiled stats over a 162 game season, but recall when he went like a whole friggin year without a sac fly? Give me the guy who will hit the ball to the right side of infield with man on 2nd and less than 2 outs; give me the guy who will lift a fly ball for the sac fly rather than K 3 out of 4 times in that situation.

I think the Reds have some potentially great players (Votto, Bruce, and BP to a lesser extent). I like that Jock appears to be adding winning players, or at least properly utilized role players, to surround these stars. This ain't fantasy baseball where everything is simple math -- we need guys willing to scrifice to win. I like it so far...

Last edited 12/8/2012 1:12 PM by Beatlessp

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 1:51 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 



Beatlessp wrote: I wholeheartly agree about the sacrifice for the team....I have never and WILL never understand the argument that some 'new school' baseball analysts try to make that an out is an out.    I will never understand how a sac fly that produces a run is the same as a strike out which moves no one.  I'm with you, give me the guy that will put himself out to better the team, over the guy that only cares about his own stat sheet
TauBag94 wrote: Baseball, for all the obsession over stats, requires much more than just numbers to actually make a winning team.

Guys like Ludwick, Rolen, Hanigan, Cairo, and potentially Hannahan, are thought to contribute more than just their "stats". The hardest part, imo, for a GM is how to quantify these intangible qualities in a player -- and how to compensate the player fairly for them.

IIRC, the great recent WS winning Yankee teams (of Joe Torre era) never had a guy hit more than 25 hrs. The past 2 WS winning Giant teams certainly never held a statistical advantage over their playoff opponents.

It was always the reason I felt Adam Dunn was a losing player. Yes, he compiled stats over a 162 game season, but recall when he went like a whole friggin year without a sac fly? Give me the guy who will hit the ball to the right side of infield with man on 2nd and less than 2 outs; give me the guy who will lift a fly ball for the sac fly rather than K 3 out of 4 times in that situation.

I think the Reds have some potentially great players (Votto, Bruce, and BP to a lesser extent). I like that Jock appears to be adding winning players, or at least properly utilized role players, to surround these stars. This ain't fantasy baseball where everything is simple math -- we need guys willing to scrifice to win. I like it so far...
Exactly, which is why a player like Barry Larkin is right where he belongs, in the Baseball Hall-of-Fame. He played for his TEAM, not the back of his baseball card.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 1:58 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 



TauBag94 wrote: Baseball, for all the obsession over stats, requires much more than just numbers to actually make a winning team.

Guys like Ludwick, Rolen, Hanigan, Cairo, and potentially Hannahan, are thought to contribute more than just their "stats". The hardest part, imo, for a GM is how to quantify these intangible qualities in a player -- and how to compensate the player fairly for them.

IIRC, the great recent WS winning Yankee teams (of Joe Torre era) never had a guy hit more than 25 hrs. The past 2 WS winning Giant teams certainly never held a statistical advantage over their playoff opponents.

It was always the reason I felt Adam Dunn was a losing player. Yes, he compiled stats over a 162 game season, but recall when he went like a whole friggin year without a sac fly? Give me the guy who will hit the ball to the right side of infield with man on 2nd and less than 2 outs; give me the guy who will lift a fly ball for the sac fly rather than K 3 out of 4 times in that situation.

I think the Reds have some potentially great players (Votto, Bruce, and BP to a lesser extent). I like that Jock appears to be adding winning players, or at least properly utilized role players, to surround these stars. This ain't fantasy baseball where everything is simple math -- we need guys willing to scrifice to win. I like it so far...
Well said.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 2:11 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Of the players TB mentioned who contribute more than just their stats, I want to give props to Cairo.  He's the one (among the group mentioned) that wildcat and I were able to pretty closely observe during our two trips to spring training. The man is simply a class, class act.


Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/8/2012 3:55 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


I agree with you guys.  I just think we give out contracts that are too long to these types of players.  I would much rather pay them more for one year than less for 2, for example.


TauBag94 wrote: Baseball, for all the obsession over stats, requires much more than just numbers to actually make a winning team.

Guys like Ludwick, Rolen, Hanigan, Cairo, and potentially Hannahan, are thought to contribute more than just their "stats". The hardest part, imo, for a GM is how to quantify these intangible qualities in a player -- and how to compensate the player fairly for them.

IIRC, the great recent WS winning Yankee teams (of Joe Torre era) never had a guy hit more than 25 hrs. The past 2 WS winning Giant teams certainly never held a statistical advantage over their playoff opponents.

It was always the reason I felt Adam Dunn was a losing player. Yes, he compiled stats over a 162 game season, but recall when he went like a whole friggin year without a sac fly? Give me the guy who will hit the ball to the right side of infield with man on 2nd and less than 2 outs; give me the guy who will lift a fly ball for the sac fly rather than K 3 out of 4 times in that situation.

I think the Reds have some potentially great players (Votto, Bruce, and BP to a lesser extent). I like that Jock appears to be adding winning players, or at least properly utilized role players, to surround these stars. This ain't fantasy baseball where everything is simple math -- we need guys willing to scrifice to win. I like it so far...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 3:58 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


I think the outfield market sort of dictated this contract. That said, I agree with you. I'm not really happy about this deal for Ludwick. I hope I'm wrong


RDriesenUD wrote: I agree with you guys.  I just think we give out contracts that are too long to these types of players.  I would much rather pay them more for one year than less for 2, for example.


TauBag94 wrote: Baseball, for all the obsession over stats, requires much more than just numbers to actually make a winning team.

Guys like Ludwick, Rolen, Hanigan, Cairo, and potentially Hannahan, are thought to contribute more than just their "stats". The hardest part, imo, for a GM is how to quantify these intangible qualities in a player -- and how to compensate the player fairly for them.

IIRC, the great recent WS winning Yankee teams (of Joe Torre era) never had a guy hit more than 25 hrs. The past 2 WS winning Giant teams certainly never held a statistical advantage over their playoff opponents.

It was always the reason I felt Adam Dunn was a losing player. Yes, he compiled stats over a 162 game season, but recall when he went like a whole friggin year without a sac fly? Give me the guy who will hit the ball to the right side of infield with man on 2nd and less than 2 outs; give me the guy who will lift a fly ball for the sac fly rather than K 3 out of 4 times in that situation.

I think the Reds have some potentially great players (Votto, Bruce, and BP to a lesser extent). I like that Jock appears to be adding winning players, or at least properly utilized role players, to surround these stars. This ain't fantasy baseball where everything is simple math -- we need guys willing to scrifice to win. I like it so far...
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/8/2012 4:12 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


Ludwick's likely to hit between one great LH bat, and one good one this season.  He's also hitting in a park that's made for him. So, if he's going to succeed anywhere, he picked a good situation for himself.  One has to think that was a significant part of his mind-set when he agreed to the deal.

Let's hope it all results in another solid season.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/10/2012 3:11 PM

RE: Reds and Ludwick agree to deal 


It's now official:

Cincinnati Reds President of Baseball Operations and General Manager Walt Jocketty today announced the signing of free agent OF Ryan Ludwick to a 2-year contract through the 2014 season with a mutual option for 2015 ($15 million).

Link


Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 2  Next >