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?

Posted: 12/13/2012 4:53 PM

Re: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



DocBuc wrote: What will Choo make in 2013? Or expected to make?
MLBTR is projecting $7.9M
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 5:03 PM

Re: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



Theshadowman wrote:

Yes, I thought of that too, but stealing yourself into scoring position twenty more times would or should get you at least another five runs.

I am all good with Choo being a Red, just saying, I would think Bruce, who played CF in the minors, would be a better choice for CF and Choo with the cannon should be in right.

Stubbs on 162 game average reaches base 207 times, 44 XBH, 37 SB
Choo on 162 game average reaches base 262 times, 61 XBH, 20 SB

They get themselves into scoring position the exact same number of times with Choo reaching first 55 more times.  That's why I attribute it to having better hitters behind him.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 5:03 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


We need that money because Ludwick and Arroyo are still on the payroll.  You take Arroyo off in one year and can take Ludwick off in 2 years.  That is a lot of money right there.  I am not saying we would want to do it.  Just that I think we can.


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
RDriesenUD wrote: Another reason I didn't want Ludwick back for more than 1 year.  I still think we could sign him if we wanted too.  Arroyo won't be back in 2014, so that will free up money.  Then, Ludwick could be gone after 2015 freeing up money.  Of course, we also have to get money for our pitchers, but I think we could make it work if we wanted too.


FiestaBuckeye wrote: I don't think there's any way Choo is on this team in 2014.  To speculate otherwise is just unrealistic, IMO.

Boras will want at least $60-$70 million for him in a multi-year contract, and will get it.  But, not from the Reds.

Ludwick will play LF for less than half of the money Choo would command, and Billy H. will man CF at the league minimum.

Walt made it clear that the Choo deal would not have been made without the $3.5 million from the Indians included.  That tells us that the Reds are very near their budget limit right now.  If he seriously intends to extend Latos and Bailey (and I believe he does), any savings we'll receive when Arroyo walks will have already been spent.

I just don't think it's realistic unless the Reds' attendance jumps significantly in 2013. But, that's very possible if this team plays to its ability.

Last edited 12/13/2012 5:04 PM by RDriesenUD

Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 6:00 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


I respect your opinion on Choo in 2014, the more I think about it I realize you are probably correct. However, I am not sold on Hamilton being ready in 2014, I sure hope he is but his limited at bats in AAA last season leave me wondering. I just think Walt needs to keep all options open including Choo; who knows he may enjoy this coming season so much that he instructs Boras to give the Reds a real home town discount. I am not at all saying that that will happen but it could - maybe a 5 to 10% chance (incidentally at the race track I do like betting the long odds).
FiestaBuckeye wrote: I don't think there's any way Choo is on this team in 2014.  To speculate otherwise is just unrealistic, IMO.

Boras will want at least $60-$70 million for him in a multi-year contract, and will get it.  But, not from the Reds.

Ludwick will play LF for less than half of the money Choo would command, and Billy H. will man CF at the league minimum.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/13/2012 6:07 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



RDriesenUD wrote: We need that money because Ludwick and Arroyo are still on the payroll.  You take Arroyo off in one year and can take Ludwick off in 2 years.  That is a lot of money right there.  I am not saying we would want to do it.  Just that I think we can.


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
RDriesenUD wrote: Another reason I didn't want Ludwick back for more than 1 year.  I still think we could sign him if we wanted too.  Arroyo won't be back in 2014, so that will free up money.  Then, Ludwick could be gone after 2015 freeing up money.  Of course, we also have to get money for our pitchers, but I think we could make it work if we wanted too.


FiestaBuckeye wrote: I don't think there's any way Choo is on this team in 2014.  To speculate otherwise is just unrealistic, IMO.

Boras will want at least $60-$70 million for him in a multi-year contract, and will get it.  But, not from the Reds.

Ludwick will play LF for less than half of the money Choo would command, and Billy H. will man CF at the league minimum.

Walt made it clear that the Choo deal would not have been made without the $3.5 million from the Indians included.  That tells us that the Reds are very near their budget limit right now.  If he seriously intends to extend Latos and Bailey (and I believe he does), any savings we'll receive when Arroyo walks will have already been spent.

I just don't think it's realistic unless the Reds' attendance jumps significantly in 2013. But, that's very possible if this team plays to its ability.
Let's extend our two young RH starters, see what additional revenue that attendance brings us in 2013, then see what we have to spend for 2014.

Getting Latos & Bailey extended is a significant (and more immediate) part of the Reds 'sustainability' blueprint if we're looking at winning 3-5 years into the future.  That will likely be HIGH on Walt's to-do list after the new year.


Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 6:13 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


Yes, but we don't have to extend them yet.  We shouldn't be adding a ton of salary to our payroll over the next year or two even if we do extend them.  We can wait a year on both.  I would especially wait on Bailey to see if he continues to improve and to see if we would rather have Cingrani or Corcino instead of paying Bailey a lot of money.


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
RDriesenUD wrote: We need that money because Ludwick and Arroyo are still on the payroll.  You take Arroyo off in one year and can take Ludwick off in 2 years.  That is a lot of money right there.  I am not saying we would want to do it.  Just that I think we can.


FiestaBuckeye wrote:
RDriesenUD wrote: Another reason I didn't want Ludwick back for more than 1 year.  I still think we could sign him if we wanted too.  Arroyo won't be back in 2014, so that will free up money.  Then, Ludwick could be gone after 2015 freeing up money.  Of course, we also have to get money for our pitchers, but I think we could make it work if we wanted too.


FiestaBuckeye wrote: I don't think there's any way Choo is on this team in 2014.  To speculate otherwise is just unrealistic, IMO.

Boras will want at least $60-$70 million for him in a multi-year contract, and will get it.  But, not from the Reds.

Ludwick will play LF for less than half of the money Choo would command, and Billy H. will man CF at the league minimum.

Walt made it clear that the Choo deal would not have been made without the $3.5 million from the Indians included.  That tells us that the Reds are very near their budget limit right now.  If he seriously intends to extend Latos and Bailey (and I believe he does), any savings we'll receive when Arroyo walks will have already been spent.

I just don't think it's realistic unless the Reds' attendance jumps significantly in 2013. But, that's very possible if this team plays to its ability.
Let's extend our two young RH starters, see what additional revenue that attendance brings us in 2013, then see what we have to spend for 2014.

Getting Latos & Bailey extended is a significant (and more immediate) part of the Reds 'sustainability' blueprint if we're looking at winning 3-5 years into the future.  That will likely be HIGH on Walt's to-do list after the new year.

Last edited 12/13/2012 6:15 PM by RDriesenUD

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/13/2012 7:04 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


Yeah we do, if we want to be able to afford them beyond their arbitration years. If either of them comes out and busts a good year, their price may double (to extend them) compared to what we can get them for now.  Their price is much more likely to go up (at their age), rather than down.  Especially in the current market. (see Zack Greinke)

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

You say the Reds can afford Choo if they want.  Based on what? Walt has repeatedly said that the Reds cannot bid for the higher-priced free agents, and Choo will be very costly after 2013.  How many Boras clients have you seen giving a home-team discount?  Keep in mind, this will be Choo's BIG pay day that will take him to age 35-36.  Any contract beyond his next one will very likely be for considerably less, so he needs to strike big while he has his ONE opportunity.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/13/2012 7:09 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


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.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/13/2012 8:23 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



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.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/13/2012 8:38 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


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.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 9:14 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



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.

I hear ya Kots.

But the problem with the comparison is that TB has guys like Matt Moore, Hellickson, etc as the guys waiting to take over.  Do you put either of C&C (corcino and cingrani) near that level?

Fwiw, you can go the route of the Rays and A's (and formerly Braves) and trade your experienced SP when you have great talent ready to replace it.  Or you ucan go the StL route and trade your "elite prospect" arms for other players or arms (Wainright nor Carpenter was home grown).  Of course, you can always get a Mark Mulder in doing so...

Anyway, given how I value our (current) minor league arms I would trade em if we find somebody who covets either one (look at Towers with Didi for example) and extend Latos and Bailey even if it costs 4/40 for Bailey and 5/60 for Latos.  If not, then you are right, they become required trade bait by end of next season (bailey anyway).

Also, I hold Stephenson in greater regard than C&C, so for above purposes please do not confuse any intent to trade him willingly.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/13/2012 9:25 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


This kinda goes back to an issue I have with the Reds - they tend to extend / sign the wrong guys for the wrong reasons. The Larkin example is low hanging fruit, but you see me working.

FWIW, the only two not-touchable guys on the farm are Hamilton and Stephenson (Unless somehow you get some young stud who is under control for a long time - not happening). I completely agree with you on Stephenson. 

Aside from who you mentioned, look at the Rays top prospects. They have so many arms. They're killing it in the draft /  int'l field (Moore wasn't a first round pick for f's sake). 

FB and I had this discussion off line a few months ago, but I'm frankly in the see what the market is for Cingrani is. I'm with Keith Law on this one - those Rice pitchers are overworked and rarely work out. I love that he's a lefty and talented but something scares me about him. And he's got a decent market value now. 

I'm frankly going on an old man rant now (much like you with your anti-social media rant earlier) but I just really believe in trying maximize a players value. I'm not shopping (openly) Homer / Leake / Cingrani, et al, but you have to ascertain their value and be open to trade options. 


TauBag94 wrote: 

I hear ya Kots.

But the problem with the comparison is that TB has guys like Matt Moore, Hellickson, etc as the guys waiting to take over.  Do you put either of C&C (corcino and cingrani) near that level?

Fwiw, you can go the route of the Rays and A's (and formerly Braves) and trade your experienced SP when you have great talent ready to replace it.  Or you ucan go the StL route and trade your "elite prospect" arms for other players or arms (Wainright nor Carpenter was home grown).  Of course, you can always get a Mark Mulder in doing so...

Anyway, given how I value our (current) minor league arms I would trade em if we find somebody who covets either one (look at Towers with Didi for example) and extend Latos and Bailey even if it costs 4/40 for Bailey and 5/60 for Latos.  If not, then you are right, they become required trade bait by end of next season (bailey anyway).

Also, I hold Stephenson in greater regard than C&C, so for above purposes please do not confuse any intent to trade him willingly.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/13/2012 9:32 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



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.


Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 10:03 PM

RE: Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo from CLE 


^ ok FB, but what if Latos and/or Bailey won't sign? What if Bailey says "i have been counting every hour until i can get out of that bandbox' and Latos says 'hey walt, meet my new agent and bff scott boras?'


Don't get me wrong -- I am prob more in your line of thinking now than not. BUT, so much rests on what we can or will do with Latos and Bailey. If they both extend, we have a surplus (but not a glut) of SP. If they do not, then we might well need one or both of C&C by 2014.

That said, I have long been the major proponent of Max Value utilization of players. Heck, I spouted off for months about why the Kearns trade was so bad simply b/c it was such a horrible return for what his value once was (plus ryan wagners). If we can flip Cingrani or Corcino for a potentially better arm (that is further from the big leagues) then I am sure you'd be for it.

I guess what I would like to see is if we hype C&C enough to be among the next crop of "best SP on the cusp" amd could trade or use in a package for a guy like Stephenson (who is, all agree, still 2 years away at least) then I'd be happy to trade one or both.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 10:24 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


We already have Cueto and Latos though.  We wouldn't be trading our top guy like TB did.


TauBag94 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.

I hear ya Kots.

But the problem with the comparison is that TB has guys like Matt Moore, Hellickson, etc as the guys waiting to take over.  Do you put either of C&C (corcino and cingrani) near that level?

Fwiw, you can go the route of the Rays and A's (and formerly Braves) and trade your experienced SP when you have great talent ready to replace it.  Or you ucan go the StL route and trade your "elite prospect" arms for other players or arms (Wainright nor Carpenter was home grown).  Of course, you can always get a Mark Mulder in doing so...

Anyway, given how I value our (current) minor league arms I would trade em if we find somebody who covets either one (look at Towers with Didi for example) and extend Latos and Bailey even if it costs 4/40 for Bailey and 5/60 for Latos.  If not, then you are right, they become required trade bait by end of next season (bailey anyway).

Also, I hold Stephenson in greater regard than C&C, so for above purposes please do not confuse any intent to trade him willingly.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 12/13/2012 10:31 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


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.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 1:17 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


I'm with fiesta on this.  It is a roll of the dice but homer is improving every year and I think he'll continue to do so. Latos certainly has ace potential and locking him up to me is a wise move. The longer we wait to resign them the more we risk paying much much more cash or being priced out altogether if they kick tail. The risk of either one stinking I think is small and less of a risk than them earning a gigantic raise if not signed relatively soon. We have one of the best staffs in basball and I think we need to secure that as long as possible for as little cash as possible by reupping them sooner rather than later.
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.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 1:42 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 


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.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 3:15 PM

RE: Reds acquire Shin-Soo Choo from CLE 



TauBag94 wrote: ^ ok FB, but what if Latos and/or Bailey won't sign? What if Bailey says "i have been counting every hour until i can get out of that bandbox' and Latos says 'hey walt, meet my new agent and bff scott boras?'


Don't get me wrong -- I am prob more in your line of thinking now than not. BUT, so much rests on what we can or will do with Latos and Bailey. If they both extend, we have a surplus (but not a glut) of SP. If they do not, then we might well need one or both of C&C by 2014.

That said, I have long been the major proponent of Max Value utilization of players. Heck, I spouted off for months about why the Kearns trade was so bad simply b/c it was such a horrible return for what his value once was (plus ryan wagners). If we can flip Cingrani or Corcino for a potentially better arm (that is further from the big leagues) then I am sure you'd be for it.

I guess what I would like to see is if we hype C&C enough to be among the next crop of "best SP on the cusp" amd could trade or use in a package for a guy like Stephenson (who is, all agree, still 2 years away at least) then I'd be happy to trade one or both.
If they won't agree to extend, they fall in the 'cut your losses' and trade them category.  What we'd be forced to do is trade them (start with Bailey) for pitching prospects that could help us 2-3 years down the road, then bump Leake back into the starting rotation.

If Bailey refuses our offer of extension, we have to consider trading him sooner than Latos, because we control Latos for one more season than we do Bailey.

Right now they'd be taking a BIG risk if they don't accept our offer (buying out a couple of FA years) because they haven't really established themselves as 'elite' pitchers yet.  By refusing our offer, they're gambling that they have no serious physical issues and do indeed reach a level of performance to get the BIG BUCKS elsewhere in free agency.

My primary point is - you don't trade quality starting pitching for offense unless you have an excess of it. Having a quality staff has to be the priority if you want to compete, especially if you cannot afford a payroll like the Dodgers, Yankees, and Angels.  If you're forced to trade a starter for financial reasons, trade him for a pitcher(s) that will keep the pipeline of starters coming up through our system.


Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 12/14/2012 3:31 PM

RE: Stubbs and DiDi for Shin-Soo Choo? 



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