Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
< Prev.  Page of 11  Next >

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo?

Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 3:36 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


From an Indians Site:

He (Choo) turned down several extensions that the club (Indians) offered him and as a Boras client was going to test the market, and there is talk that with a good year in 2013 he could command a five or six year deal for close to $80-90 million, maybe even $100 million.

Link


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 3:49 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


Geez. 

He's about as much of a one and done for the Reds as the five star recruits that Cailpari brings to Kentucky. 

FiestaBuckeye wrote: From an Indians Site:

He (Choo) turned down several extensions that the club (Indians) offered him and as a Boras client was going to test the market, and there is talk that with a good year in 2013 he could command a five or six year deal for close to $80-90 million, maybe even $100 million.

Link
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/14/2012 3:59 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


Interesting you mention Soto.  One side benefit from locking up Votto is that we can flip minor league first-basemen multiple times over his contract.  It shouldn't be that hard to have a first baseman pound minor league pitching every few years.  Look at the impact that Alonso had on the Latos trade.  Soto started out slowly at Louisville in 2012 but picked up his game at the end of the season.  If he kills it in 2013 then he could be good trade bait one year from now. 

I don't expect them to do this every year, but they've already flipped one and could do it two or three more times while Votto is under contract.  Some of these guys will turn into good major league hitters and some won't.  Let other teams take their chances with them while we enjoy the production expected from Votto.  When it's time to deal we just need to find one rebuilding team weak at that position and hopefully they'll be willing to part with someone we want.  Besides, rebuilding teams can afford to be more patient with them. 

They picked up a former first round selection Beau Mills and put him in the pipeline behind Soto.  He might damaged goods, however.  The Tribe already gave up on him and he finished 2012 in AA at the age of 25.  Still, if he gets his strikeout rate down he might return a decent bench player or reliever in the future.   Lutz might be another candidate to flip down the road.  If he can't move to the outfield then they can leave him at first and he will still have value if he develops.   

Speaking of Votto, his extension gives him a $5M pay reduction in 2014 from what he makes in 2013.  His 2015 earnings will be only $2M more than 2014.  The way they backloaded his contract he won't reach his 2013 level ($17M) again until 2016 ($20M).  Assuming they can swallow $17M/yr for Votto, then when he hits the $20M level in 2016 & $22M in 2017, theorectically the $8M they saved paying him less than $17M in 2014/15 will pay for that increase.  That is a case that his extension doesn't start eating up extra payroll above $17M until 2018.  By that time 40% of the commitment in the extension will have been fulfilled and he's still only 34 years old. 

Now we may yet pay the piper when those back-loaded years come around, especially if his productivity declines after the age of 35.  Every good year we get from him in that stage of his career is one year closer to shedding the contract as his age advances.  Also, it's not too far-fetched to think that our budget should grow a bit over the next 4-5 years, even if it's only inflation adjustment.  He tops out at $25M in 2018 and stays there for the remaining years.  The difference between that and the $17M "baseline" (which is below his current market value) is $8M, which could put a good veteran at another position.  If they can manage some extra budget down the road, maybe that can cover the extra $8M.  At least there's a lot of time to plan for it. 
kots4mvp14 wrote: To me, the Braves analogy is flawed. They were not a small market team - they (during that run) had one of the highest if not the highest payroll during that run (see attached). Greg Maddux was a huge FA signee during that time. The discussion came from how a seemingly smaller market team can compete. 

http://www.baseballchronology....993/Payroll.asp


Again, I want to make sure I don't mis-speak - I am not saying openly shop Homer. I'm really happy with his maturation and always wanted him to get it together because of how the team completely misused him during his rookie year. But, the formula for success has been set for teams with smaller payrolls. You scout your backside off (I'm extremely happy with our scouting department) you find the cornerstones and keep them LT but you always have to keep your ears open to potential trades should they arise. Tampa is a first rate organization in a dog of a city (I did live there for a while - that stadium setup is appalling) because they do this. 

Like I said, Latos, to me, has to be locked up. But anybody else not named Chapman or Votto (who cannot be traded) I would listen to an offer for. If KC makes something close to that offer they gave up for Shields and Davis for, say, Homer & say Soto (Tampa does not have a higher end first base prospect) I do it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. 



FiestaBuckeye wrote:
 
The Braves made a LONG run behind a quality (HoF) staff when they had Maddox, Glavine, Smoltz, etc.  Over the years the rest of their roster was fluid, but the common denominator of their success was their starting staff. I'm not saying our guys are going to be Hall-of-Famer's, but you see my point.

We're now set-up with a quality, young staff of Cueto, Latos, Chapman, Bailey, Leake, Cingrani, Corcino and eventually Stephenson/Travieso that could give us a long run of being a REAL contender.  We've been waiting 10-15 years to have this kind of pitching, and if I'm Walt, opposing GM's would have to pry them out of my cold, dead fingers. The Dodgers can spend their $300 million, but if we have a quality starting staff, our chances of succeeding in the playoffs (short series) are as good as theirs. (see the Giants)

We have our offensive nucleus signed long-term in Votto, Bruce, and BP.  Going forward, we keep our quality starters (and top starting pitching prospects) and continue to build our offense around those three hitters.  Walt just demonstrated how you do that without sacrificing pitching.

Repeating Myself  Here --> I'm a believer that you only trade pitching to upgrade your pitching (Latos, Marshall), if you have a ridiculous excess (we don't), or if you're going to lose a guy to free agency and you're forced to cut your losses.

I was critical when 'Big Bob' fired Krivsky, because I thought our personnel was gradually getting better with his moves.  It turned out I WAS WRONG for being critical, hiring Walt (an upgrade over Kriv) was a GREAT move. Walt took what he inherited and built on it, the result now is that we're set-up to be a factor for years to come. 

Extending players who are our nucleus and buying out a couple of free agency years is one tool he's going have to use wisely to keep us in this position.  Extending Latos and Bailey needs to happen NOW before they go out and have a 20-game win season and price themselves out of Cincy. Those guys (and their agents) know very well what Greinke just received.

Check out news from the Reds development teams by clicking "Cincinnati Home" beneath the CincyHardball log above. 

Last edited 12/14/2012 4:19 PM by LexRedsFan

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 4:00 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



kots4mvp14 wrote: To me, the Braves analogy is flawed. They were not a small market team - they (during that run) had one of the highest if not the highest payroll during that run (see attached). Greg Maddux was a huge FA signee during that time. The discussion came from how a seemingly smaller market team can compete. 

http://www.baseballchronology....993/Payroll.asp


Again, I want to make sure I don't mis-speak - I am not saying openly shop Homer. I'm really happy with his maturation and always wanted him to get it together because of how the team completely misused him during his rookie year. But, the formula for success has been set for teams with smaller payrolls. You scout your backside off (I'm extremely happy with our scouting department) you find the cornerstones and keep them LT but you always have to keep your ears open to potential trades should they arise. Tampa is a first rate organization in a dog of a city (I did live there for a while - that stadium setup is appalling) because they do this. 

Like I said, Latos, to me, has to be locked up. But anybody else not named Chapman or Votto (who cannot be traded) I would listen to an offer for. If KC makes something close to that offer they gave up for Shields and Davis for, say, Homer & say Soto (Tampa does not have a higher end first base prospect) I do it every day of the week and twice on Sunday. 

You're right, the Braves situation was different because they had money to BUY pitching.  But, my point is that their starting staff was their backbone throughout their run. 

We won't likely have the luxury of keeping the same three top-of-the-rotation pitchers (like the Braves) over a long period of time, but through drafting, developing, and trading we can maintain the quality of our rotation that's required for the 'sustainability' the Reds management (and fans) desires.  If I'm Walt, I'm not trading a quality pitcher from my rotation for offense unless I'm at least seven deep, and have more in the pipeline.

The best way IMO to sustain winning over a period of time is to primarily focus on keeping your starting rotation strong, plus keeping a core group of your offense signed. (like Votto, BP, and Bruce)  If we do that, we have a chance every year.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 4:21 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


Do you think we are now ? I would ague yes. 

JC - ace
Latos - borderline ace
Chapman - A huge unknown but potentially a game changer in the rotation
Homer - Finally starting to mature
Arroyo - The object of most of Pack's dreams
Leake - Enigmatic but I still think effective pitcher (if he can pull it together)
Cingrani - My guess is that if the team was desperate he could go into next year as a starter

Corcino - a year away
Stephenson - Three years away (and my favorite prospect)
Travieso - Three / Four years away 


FiestaBuckeye wrote: 

You're right, the Braves situation was different because they had money to BUY pitching.  But, my point is that their starting staff was their backbone throughout their run. 

We won't likely have the luxury of keeping the same three top-of-the-rotation pitchers (like the Braves) over a long period of time, but through drafting, developing, and trading we can maintain the quality of our rotation that's required for the 'sustainability' the Reds management (and fans) desires.  If I'm Walt, I'm not trading a quality pitcher from my rotation for offense unless I'm at least seven deep, and have more in the pipeline.

The best way IMO to sustain winning over a period of time is to primarily focus on keeping your starting rotation strong, plus keeping a core group of your offense signed. (like Votto, BP, and Bruce)  If we do that, we have a chance every year.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 4:38 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



kots4mvp14 wrote: Do you think we are now ? I would ague yes. 

JC - ace
Latos - borderline ace
Chapman - A huge unknown but potentially a game changer in the rotation
Homer - Finally starting to mature
Arroyo - The object of most of Pack's dreams
Leake - Enigmatic but I still think effective pitcher (if he can pull it together)
Cingrani - My guess is that if the team was desperate he could go into next year as a starter

Corcino - a year away
Stephenson - Three years away (and my favorite prospect)
Travieso - Three / Four years away 


FiestaBuckeye wrote: 

You're right, the Braves situation was different because they had money to BUY pitching.  But, my point is that their starting staff was their backbone throughout their run. 

We won't likely have the luxury of keeping the same three top-of-the-rotation pitchers (like the Braves) over a long period of time, but through drafting, developing, and trading we can maintain the quality of our rotation that's required for the 'sustainability' the Reds management (and fans) desires.  If I'm Walt, I'm not trading a quality pitcher from my rotation for offense unless I'm at least seven deep, and have more in the pipeline.

The best way IMO to sustain winning over a period of time is to primarily focus on keeping your starting rotation strong, plus keeping a core group of your offense signed. (like Votto, BP, and Bruce)  If we do that, we have a chance every year.
Cingrani isn't yet major league ready as a starter IMO, and Arroyo will likely no longer be a Reds player come October.

I like our pitching, but just don't think we have the excess to deal. (right now)


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 4:47 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



FiestaBuckeye wrote:
kots4mvp14 wrote: Do you think we are now ? I would ague yes. 

JC - ace
Latos - borderline ace
Chapman - A huge unknown but potentially a game changer in the rotation
Homer - Finally starting to mature
Arroyo - The object of most of Pack's dreams
Leake - Enigmatic but I still think effective pitcher (if he can pull it together)
Cingrani - My guess is that if the team was desperate he could go into next year as a starter

Corcino - a year away
Stephenson - Three years away (and my favorite prospect)
Travieso - Three / Four years away 


FiestaBuckeye wrote: 

You're right, the Braves situation was different because they had money to BUY pitching.  But, my point is that their starting staff was their backbone throughout their run. 

We won't likely have the luxury of keeping the same three top-of-the-rotation pitchers (like the Braves) over a long period of time, but through drafting, developing, and trading we can maintain the quality of our rotation that's required for the 'sustainability' the Reds management (and fans) desires.  If I'm Walt, I'm not trading a quality pitcher from my rotation for offense unless I'm at least seven deep, and have more in the pipeline.

The best way IMO to sustain winning over a period of time is to primarily focus on keeping your starting rotation strong, plus keeping a core group of your offense signed. (like Votto, BP, and Bruce)  If we do that, we have a chance every year.
Cingrani isn't yet major league ready as a starter IMO, and Arroyo will likely no longer be a Reds player come October.

I like our pitching, but just don't think we have the excess to deal. (right now)
Fair enough - you and I just see this one a little differently. 

Truthfully it is probably a moot point as I just don't think Homer's value out there is as good as I'd like it to be for this argument. Shields has had years of very solid work. He's not elite but horses are important, and he's a horse. 

And truth be told, it would appear that the Reds are done until they get to Arizona, so talking about make believe trades is all we have right now.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 5:07 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


If Walt makes another move, he's said that it'll be to balance his bullpen. He has two months to get that done if he continues to feel the need.

This team has as good of an opportunity to win the 2013 World Series as anyone in baseball. Our chances of making the post season are very good, given our talent, division, and the wild-card spots. Once you make it to the post-season, it's who has pitching, and who gets hot.

I don't care how much money the Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, Tigers, Rangers, etc. have, we have a 50-50 shot to beat any of them in a short series with this group.


Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/14/2012 7:11 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



FiestaBuckeye wrote:
kots4mvp14 wrote: Do you think we are now ? I would ague yes. 

JC - ace
Latos - borderline ace
Chapman - A huge unknown but potentially a game changer in the rotation
Homer - Finally starting to mature
Arroyo - The object of most of Pack's dreams
Leake - Enigmatic but I still think effective pitcher (if he can pull it together)
Cingrani - My guess is that if the team was desperate he could go into next year as a starter

Corcino - a year away
Stephenson - Three years away (and my favorite prospect)
Travieso - Three / Four years away 


FiestaBuckeye wrote: 

You're right, the Braves situation was different because they had money to BUY pitching.  But, my point is that their starting staff was their backbone throughout their run. 

We won't likely have the luxury of keeping the same three top-of-the-rotation pitchers (like the Braves) over a long period of time, but through drafting, developing, and trading we can maintain the quality of our rotation that's required for the 'sustainability' the Reds management (and fans) desires.  If I'm Walt, I'm not trading a quality pitcher from my rotation for offense unless I'm at least seven deep, and have more in the pipeline.

The best way IMO to sustain winning over a period of time is to primarily focus on keeping your starting rotation strong, plus keeping a core group of your offense signed. (like Votto, BP, and Bruce)  If we do that, we have a chance every year.
Cingrani isn't yet major league ready as a starter IMO, and Arroyo will likely no longer be a Reds player come end of october.

I like our pitching, but just don't think we have the excess to deal. (right now)

FIFY bro.  Reds season won't end until after WS!


Also, Choo would certainly fit in with the UK mindset, hope it pays off for Reds like it did Cats in 2012.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/14/2012 8:18 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


Where did I ever say that?  I said I wouldn't extend him yet.  I want to see if he can have more than one good year before I give him a big contract.  My point is I am willing to wait.  I think it is way to big of a risk.  Latos is a different story.  I have no problem signing him to a big contract.


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
RDriesenUD wrote: Bailey has had only one good year and it was mostly only away from home.  Do you really think he is going to go out and win 20 games next year?  He is more likely to have a bad year than he is to win 20 games.


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
kots4mvp14 wrote: No proposal, as I frankly don't know what the market would bear for a guy like Homer / Leake. I'm just saying if that a very good offer comes down the pipeline for a guy like that, you have to look at it and really think about pulling the trigger. For instance, if KC made a similar offer for Homer as they did for Shields (in the ball park, not the exact same trade) I would have pulled the trigger. That is just me, but sometimes holding on to guys too long can be a downfall. 

I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. I'm just a bit more aggressive about looking at / finalizing trades like that. I love how Tampa runs their organization and this is their mantra. 


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
kots4mvp14 wrote: This includes not only extending the right guy (I was on board with JC and I would like to look at Latos as I've stated before) but also trading when the price is ripe. See Tampa (who is amongst the best run organizations in mlb). The haul they received from KC was really nice. Look at their prospects - they have so many good arms. They almost have to do this kind of a trade every so often. 


FiestaBuckeye wrote: 

A small market team has to act before they're priced out of the market. Proactive rather than reactive.


So, what are you proposing?  Your post is vague.
The Braves made a LONG run behind a quality (HoF) staff when they had Maddox, Glavine, Smoltz, etc.  Over the years the rest of their roster was fluid, but the common denominator of their success was their starting staff. I'm not saying our guys are going to be Hall-of-Famer's, but you see my point.

We're now set-up with a quality, young staff of Cueto, Latos, Chapman, Bailey, Leake, Cingrani, Corcino and eventually Stephenson/Travieso that could give us a long run of being a REAL contender.  We've been waiting 10-15 years to have this kind of pitching, and if I'm Walt, opposing GM's would have to pry them out of my cold, dead fingers. The Dodgers can spend their $300 million, but if we have a quality starting staff, our chances of succeeding in the playoffs (short series) are as good as theirs. (see the Giants)

We have our offensive nucleus signed long-term in Votto, Bruce, and BP.  Going forward, we keep our quality starters (and top starting pitching prospects) and continue to build our offense around those three hitters.  Walt just demonstrated how you do that without sacrificing pitching.

Repeating Myself  Here --> I'm a believer that you only trade pitching to upgrade your pitching (Latos, Marshall), if you have a ridiculous excess (we don't), or if you're going to lose a guy to free agency and you're forced to cut your losses.

I was critical when 'Big Bob' fired Krivsky, because I thought our personnel was gradually getting better with his moves.  It turned out I WAS WRONG for being critical, hiring Walt (an upgrade over Kriv) was a GREAT move. Walt took what he inherited and built on it, the result now is that we're set-up to be a factor for years to come. 

Extending players who are our nucleus and buying out a couple of free agency years is one tool he's going have to use wisely to keep us in this position.  Extending Latos and Bailey needs to happen NOW before they go out and have a 20-game win season and price themselves out of Cincy. Those guys (and their agents) know very well what Greinke just received.
We've invested big money on Bailey (due to being a #1 pick) and have spent eight years developing him.  Now it appears he may have developed to the point (entering his prime) that he's going to help us contend consistently, and you're willing to move him for additional offense?  Not me, unless someone blatantly overpays, or I can upgrade my starting pitching even further by moving him.

It's unlikely Homer puts up a 20-win season (you're correct), but if he even comes close to that level of performance - then we're no longer in a position to make a big enough offer to buy out a couple of his free agent years.  Not at the price these guys are receiving once they gain free agency.

If we're to have a chance at buying a couple of their FA years out, we have to do it BEFORE they have the BIG year, not after.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 8:18 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


value of starting pitching is way up. so wouldnt be shocking if d'arnaud is in deal, as believed. would be coup for  # mets.


This is from Heyman about Dickey. Probably the wrong thread, but this one has legs right now. This is furthering my point on this subject. If the Mets are able to get D'Arnaud from TOR for Dickey they've won the lotto. In the discussion with Mesoraco & Montero as the best catching prospect in all of baseball the last couple of years. Some had D'Arnaud #1 (most had Montero, but that not the issue).

If the Reds could create a buzz for Homer they have to look at it. This rumor is so curious to me. 

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/14/2012 8:26 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


I agree with you.  I am not trying to trade Homer, but I think you have to look into what kind of return you could get.


kots4mvp14 wrote:

value of starting pitching is way up. so wouldnt be shocking if d'arnaud is in deal, as believed. would be coup for  # mets.


This is from Heyman about Dickey. Probably the wrong thread, but this one has legs right now. This is furthering my point on this subject. If the Mets are able to get D'Arnaud from TOR for Dickey they've won the lotto. In the discussion with Mesoraco & Montero as the best catching prospect in all of baseball the last couple of years. Some had D'Arnaud #1 (most had Montero, but that not the issue).

If the Reds could create a buzz for Homer they have to look at it. This rumor is so curious to me. 

Last edited 12/15/2012 12:04 AM by RDriesenUD

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 10:52 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


If somebody wants to sell the farm for Homer, I'd certainly help him pack his bags. 
RDriesenUD wrote: I agree with you.  I am not trying to trade homer, but I think you have to look into what kind of return you could get.


kots4mvp14 wrote:

value of starting pitching is way up. so wouldnt be shocking if d'arnaud is in deal, as believed. would be coup for  # mets.


This is from Heyman about Dickey. Probably the wrong thread, but this one has legs right now. This is furthering my point on this subject. If the Mets are able to get D'Arnaud from TOR for Dickey they've won the lotto. In the discussion with Mesoraco & Montero as the best catching prospect in all of baseball the last couple of years. Some had D'Arnaud #1 (most had Montero, but that not the issue).

If the Reds could create a buzz for Homer they have to look at it. This rumor is so curious to me. 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 11:30 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



RDriesenUD wrote: Where did I ever say that?  I said I wouldn't extend him yet.  I want to see if he can have more than one good year before I give him a big contract.  My point is I am willing to wait.  I think it is way to big of a risk.  Latos is a different story.  I have no problem signing him to a big contract.

Instance #1 - A couple of years ago you were perfectly willing to trade him for Corey Hart. You didn't like Homer's 'attitude' and he was never going to live up to expectations. We had that debate.

Instance #2 - Unless I'm mistaken, you were also OK with including him (or Leake) in a deal for Fowler.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 11:30 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


We do look very good at the big league level now but not so down on the farm imo.  We added a lot of AAAA arms to AAA last year because there was a shortage there.  I'd deal an arm for a better arm, sure, but homer or whichever arm only for a better arm and nothing else. 

kots4mvp14 wrote:
FiestaBuckeye wrote:
kots4mvp14 wrote: Do you think we are now ? I would ague yes. 

JC - ace
Latos - borderline ace
Chapman - A huge unknown but potentially a game changer in the rotation
Homer - Finally starting to mature
Arroyo - The object of most of Pack's dreams
Leake - Enigmatic but I still think effective pitcher (if he can pull it together)
Cingrani - My guess is that if the team was desperate he could go into next year as a starter

Corcino - a year away
Stephenson - Three years away (and my favorite prospect)
Travieso - Three / Four years away 


FiestaBuckeye wrote: 

You're right, the Braves situation was different because they had money to BUY pitching.  But, my point is that their starting staff was their backbone throughout their run. 

We won't likely have the luxury of keeping the same three top-of-the-rotation pitchers (like the Braves) over a long period of time, but through drafting, developing, and trading we can maintain the quality of our rotation that's required for the 'sustainability' the Reds management (and fans) desires.  If I'm Walt, I'm not trading a quality pitcher from my rotation for offense unless I'm at least seven deep, and have more in the pipeline.

The best way IMO to sustain winning over a period of time is to primarily focus on keeping your starting rotation strong, plus keeping a core group of your offense signed. (like Votto, BP, and Bruce)  If we do that, we have a chance every year.
Cingrani isn't yet major league ready as a starter IMO, and Arroyo will likely no longer be a Reds player come October.

I like our pitching, but just don't think we have the excess to deal. (right now)
Fair enough - you and I just see this one a little differently. 

Truthfully it is probably a moot point as I just don't think Homer's value out there is as good as I'd like it to be for this argument. Shields has had years of very solid work. He's not elite but horses are important, and he's a horse. 

And truth be told, it would appear that the Reds are done until they get to Arizona, so talking about make believe trades is all we have right now.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/15/2012 12:00 AM

RE: Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo from CLE 


I was living in StL when Kent Bottenfield won 18 games in 1999 (with a 4pt era).

Wins are a silly stat, but I agree I wanted Cueto to get 20 wins just for the effort. Wasn't trying to be blase before, reality is that anybody who avgs over 15 wins per yr for 3 for 4 years basically qualifies as an ace. That win avg, btw, is harder to get than you might think, especially for current pitchers
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/15/2012 12:05 AM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


Yes, because I think both of those trades would have made us better.  You are acting like I am just trying to give him away.


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
RDriesenUD wrote: Where did I ever say that?  I said I wouldn't extend him yet.  I want to see if he can have more than one good year before I give him a big contract.  My point is I am willing to wait.  I think it is way to big of a risk.  Latos is a different story.  I have no problem signing him to a big contract.

Instance #1 - A couple of years ago you were perfectly willing to trade him for Corey Hart. You didn't like Homer's 'attitude' and he was never going to live up to expectations. We had that debate.

Instance #2 - Unless I'm mistaken, you were also OK with including him (or Leake) in a deal for Fowler.

Last edited 12/15/2012 12:06 AM by RDriesenUD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/15/2012 12:42 AM

RE: Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo from CLE 


Ok, for the distraction I went and looked up the stats for last 3 and 4 yrs.

Lets just use last 3 yrs as a window... by my count, only 10 pitchers averaged 15 wins or more since 2010.

Some that did not make it: King Felix, Lincecum or Cain (despite WS glory), Greinke, Cliff Lee or Cole Hamels, Cueto nor Latos nor Arroyo, and not Wainright, Carpenter, or Garcia (though injury had big hand there).


























The ten are: Price, J. Weaver, Gio, Kershaw, CC, Verlander, Tim Hudson, Gallardo, and Ian Kennedy.

Hudson and Kennedy really surprise, but either way, that is an elite list. Wins might be irrelevant and might not be best barometer, but it shows just how hard 15 wins is and only the best (by and large) can do it with consistency.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/15/2012 1:37 AM

RE: Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo from CLE 


I've said this muliple times before, but outside of the overly generous requirements for a save, wins are the most ridiculous stat in a sport with an ocean of stats.  Felix Hernandez won a Cy Young the same year he went 13-12. 

There are as many factors that determine who gets the win outside of the pitcher's control as there are inside: offensive support, defensive support, effectiveness of other team's pitcher/defense, ability of his bullpen to hold a lead, missed calls by the umpire, and as often in the Reds case-leaving him in too long or taking him out too early.  In the case of relievers, wins are often a negative because they are awarded when they blow a lead and the offense comes back to bail them out.  Given the job description of a closer, I don't think I want one to notch up ten wins in a season. 

Now I did want to see Cueto get 20 too, but kind of like you I felt that he deserved the recognition that so many people give to that achievement.  If memory is correct it was a couple of unearned runs in his final start that robbed him of #20 and he actually pitched well enough to win that one. 

Bronson Arroyo won 15 three years in a row from 08-10.  Now Arroyo is an innings-eater and a good man to have in the middle of the rotation, but our "ace" followed up that run by putting up a five ERA in 2011.  Actually he wasn't much under five when he won 15 in 08. 

Also, regarding trade speculations: No one can really judge them as good or bad without knowing the all the details.  That's actually a law that can be applied to any form of business.   

TauBag94 wrote: I was living in StL when Kent Bottenfield won 18 games in 1999 (with a 4pt era).

Wins are a silly stat, but I agree I wanted Cueto to get 20 wins just for the effort. Wasn't trying to be blase before, reality is that anybody who avgs over 15 wins per yr for 3 for 4 years basically qualifies as an ace. That win avg, btw, is harder to get than you might think, especially for current pitchers

Check out news from the Reds development teams by clicking "Cincinnati Home" beneath the CincyHardball log above. 

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/15/2012 9:36 AM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


kots, this is still funny a day later.  Nice. 
kots4mvp14 wrote: Geez. 

He's about as much of a one and done for the Reds as the five star recruits that Cailpari brings to Kentucky. 

FiestaBuckeye wrote: From an Indians Site:

He (Choo) turned down several extensions that the club (Indians) offered him and as a Boras client was going to test the market, and there is talk that with a good year in 2013 he could command a five or six year deal for close to $80-90 million, maybe even $100 million.

Link
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
< Prev.  Page of 11  Next >