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 5  Next >

RE: Changes for 2013

Posted: 10/17/2012 1:55 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



TauBag94 wrote: I am saying that your complaint about Cordero shows why you are wrong.

I never complained about Cordero.  I was actually his biggest defender around here.  I said that this board was tearing their collective hair out when he was here saving games because he would walk some guys, give up a few runs and get the save.

Either the guy gets the job done or he doesn't. Cordero did the job for us. Plenty of guys can do it. Aroldis certainly can do it.

Never once did I say it's not possible to find a closer.  Not once

But if you are going to tell me that any top closer has value near a top starter, then I agree, we aren't going to find common ground...

Every post I have made on this topic, I have started it with the statement "STARTERS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN CLOSERS", so I'm not sure why you are making that argument
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 1:57 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



DocBuc wrote:
OhioRaiderNation wrote:
TauBag94 wrote:
OhioRaiderNation wrote:
TauBag94 wrote:   Other than # of saves and save %, I'm not really sure where they are similar

How else would you measure a closer?  By height?  wink 
I guess I don't consider the number of games you kept a 3 run lead for an inning the most valuable stat to evaluate a pitcher



I measure closers by save % and golfers by height


But gofers I measure by the carcass.


btw, if anybody missed this Murray family gem, you have another shot:

http://www.grantland.com/blog/...r-in-road-house
If you are telling me that Frank Francisco with his 5.53 ERA and 1.61 WHIP are the same thing as Aroldis Chapman because they have the same Save % then I doubt we are going to find common ground on this
They absolutely were equal in games in which they had a save opportunity. But they also came into games where there wasn't a save opportunity, which I am sure Francisco probably did much worse. But the only thing I care about is whether we won the game or not, whether it is by 1 run or 3 runs is immaterial to me.
Really?  If two pitchers have the same record, there is no difference between them?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/17/2012 2:12 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 


Ludwick opting out of his deal. Not surprised. How hard to the Reds try to keep him?

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/17/2012 2:22 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



wolfpack87 wrote: Ludwick opting out of his deal. Not surprised. How hard to the Reds try to keep him?
And the bad news continues. ohlord
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 2:48 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



IamRV wrote:
wolfpack87 wrote: Ludwick opting out of his deal. Not surprised. How hard to the Reds try to keep him?
And the bad news continues. ohlord
Not necessarily the end of the road.  I think 2/$14-$15M would keep him.  Is he worth it though?
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/17/2012 3:02 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



OhioRaiderNation wrote:
IamRV wrote:
wolfpack87 wrote: Ludwick opting out of his deal. Not surprised. How hard to the Reds try to keep him?
And the bad news continues. ohlord
Not necessarily the end of the road.  I think 2/$14-$15M would keep him.  Is he worth it though?
Tough call. I'd rather offer up something like that to a leadoff hitter, but then again, Ludwick was one of the few clutch hitters we had down the stretch. I hope they bring him back, even though he is up in years.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/17/2012 4:07 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



wolfpack87 wrote:
OhioRaiderNation wrote:
IamRV wrote:
wolfpack87 wrote: Ludwick opting out of his deal. Not surprised. How hard to the Reds try to keep him?
And the bad news continues. ohlord
Not necessarily the end of the road.  I think 2/$14-$15M would keep him.  Is he worth it though?
Tough call. I'd rather offer up something like that to a leadoff hitter, but then again, Ludwick was one of the few clutch hitters we had down the stretch. I hope they bring him back, even though he is up in years.
I'm not too worried about a leadoff hitter with Hamilton emerging. Will he be MLB ready in April? No. But come August, I'd be pretty surprised if Hamilton wasn't up, barring a big slump. I don't think a leadoff hitter is necessarily something we really need to look for if the issue will be resolved 4-5 months into the season. Ludwick provides clutch at-bats, and consistent power and contact. Unless we can find someone else just like that in FA, I'd say offer up a 2 year 14 mil deal. Anything more than that though may be a little much.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 4:14 PM

Re: Changes for 2013 


It really comes down to what other teams are willing to pay for an OF bat...but I wouldn't pay more than 2 year $12 million with some type of 3rd year option buyout. He will probably command more though at which point I think we should let him walk. He will be 35 years old next year.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 5:01 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 


Ludwick declining his option could be a blessing in disguise for the Reds really.  They can aggressively pursue other options in trades.

I was thinking about the notion of upgrading the rotation.  I think the better option would be to make some small investments in "reclamation projects" like Jair Jurrjens (if he is indeed non-tendered), Jonathan Sanchez, etc.  These are guys you can stash in the minors on a minimal investment and if they work out, you have other options, if not, release them, no big deal.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 6:14 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 


Let me clarify a few things on Chapman:

In no way, shape or form do I think a closer is more valuable than a starter.  However, there are a few caveats to that:

-Chapman is more valuable as a closer than as a patient on Dr. Kremchek's operating table.  There is certainly a trend of pitchers being injured when they are stretched out

-This team has limited cash this offseason and 2 gaping holes in the lineup, either LF or 3B (since Frazier can play both) and CF.  IMO, these holes are priority 1 & 2 and are must haves.  SS, Backup C, Starting pitching and Bench are on the radar as well although not dire needs.  By moving Chapman to the rotation, you close a hole that is on the radar and open another must have hole.  Unless you plan on just rolling the dice on a journeyman coming off of a few tough seasons, it's going to cost you in the $4-5M range for a closer cutting into the funds to fill the other gaping holes.

-He's no sure thing.  He has yet to show the ability to consistently throw more than 1 pitch.  That 1 pitch happens to be a 100+ MPH fastball, so it's not a bad 1 pitch to have but if he can't develop his other pitches, guys will time you up no matter how hard you throw.  Especially 3-4 times through the lineup.

Believe me.  I would love for Chapman go to to the rotation and dominate.  Being able to put Cueto, Latos and Chapman against any rotation in the playoffs would be a huge advantage for the Reds.  I'm not going to hope he fails if they move him to the rotation just so I can be right.  I just think this is a huge risk to a team that is so close to the promised land.  Again, the ideal situation would be for him to start and be successful and I'd be unbelievably happy with that
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 6:35 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 


In terms of your quote of my quote, the statement was "value near a top starter".


This is all a risk/reward analysis. If you look closely, I never advocated Aroldis to the rotation come hell or high water. I have repeatedly said that the Reds MUST investigate the option, if only b/c of the relative values of the positions involved.

There is no guarantee Chappy doesn't get hurt closing, either, nor any guarantee he maintains his level of dominance there either. No guarantee he is a top starter, I agree, but the numbers you keep citing as evidence of his greatness as a closer requires, imo, that the team investigate moving him to a more valuable spot for the team.



As for Ludwick, Fay (or Doc) has already reported during the season that Ludwick not expected to return.

If we were to go multiple yrs for him, I'd be pissed. Look at the numbers -- would you prefer Ludwick, Josh Willingham, or Carlos Beltran? I'd put Luddy a distant 3rd there.

Last offseason, Willingham got 3yrs, $21 mill, so $7 per year. Beltran got 2yrs, $26 million. If we are going to break $7 or $8 million for a bat, I'd prefer a much better track record than Ludwick has. Heck, even Jason Kubel got 2yrs and $16 million, and I'd prefer his bat to Ludwicks (but Kubels does have a crappy glove, to put it mildly).

Just going by comps for what Ludwick expects contract wise, I can't see him being a fit for the Reds. And it makes me wish mgmt had given more consideration to filling that huge hole at cleanup (that Luddy did fill well for most of the season). Hindsight 20/20, but I lamented the team not investing in Beltran or Willingham last offseason. From the current FA crop, not sure who would be a worthy addition at those salaries.

The odds of Ludwick, at his age, returning to the "back of his baseball card" norm is just way to great for the Reds to make the investment that he (now) requires. I'd probably be ok with a 1 yr deal, but even that reeks of 2010 and standing pat...
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 7:14 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



TauBag94 wrote: In terms of your quote of my quote, the statement was "value near a top starter".

I didn't quote you, so I'm not sure where that is coming from.  I don't think a closer's value is "near a top starter" either

This is all a risk/reward analysis. If you look closely, I never advocated Aroldis to the rotation come hell or high water. I have repeatedly said that the Reds MUST investigate the option, if only b/c of the relative values of the positions involved.

Never said any of these things.  I agree it should be investigated

There is no guarantee Chappy doesn't get hurt closing, either, nor any guarantee he maintains his level of dominance there either. No guarantee he is a top starter, I agree, but the numbers you keep citing as evidence of his greatness as a closer requires, imo, that the team investigate moving him to a more valuable spot for the team.

There is no guarantee.  It's the "stretching him out" part that I am worried about.  Not getting hurt once he is "stretched out" and pitching regularly.  I never cited numbers of his "evidence of greatness".  I'm not sure where that is coming from.

I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/17/2012 9:44 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



OhioRaiderNation wrote:

I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer



Great, glad you agree with me! tongue Took us awhile to get there...


Next I will have to convince you to forgo the red text --mein eyes are burning!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/18/2012 8:21 AM

RE: Changes for 2013 



TauBag94 wrote:
OhioRaiderNation wrote:

I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer



Great, glad you agree with me! tongue Took us awhile to get there...


Next I will have to convince you to forgo the red text --mein eyes are burning!
Took us a while to get there?

Tuesday at 7:24PM: "Starters have much more value than closers"
Tuesday at 7:31PM: "Again and again, I'm not saying Closers are more valuable or even as valuable as starters.  If they make him a starter, I'm not going to complain about it because the reward is HUGE"
Wednesday at 1:55PM: "STARTERS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN CLOSERS"
Wednesday at 6:14PM: "In no way, shape or form do I think a closer is more valuable than a starter" and also "Believe me.  I would love for Chapman go to to the rotation and dominate.  Being able to put Cueto, Latos and Chapman against any rotation in the playoffs would be a huge advantage for the Reds.  I'm not going to hope he fails if they move him to the rotation just so I can be right.  I just think this is a huge risk to a team that is so close to the promised land.  Again, the ideal situation would be for him to start and be successful and I'd be unbelievably happy with that"
Wednesday at 7:14PM: "I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer"

I guess you can take credit if you want, but I didn't need any convincing
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 10/18/2012 12:10 PM

Re: Changes for 2013 


Weird. I'm logging onto the old scout board but redszone keeps popping up.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/18/2012 4:10 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



OhioRaiderNation wrote:
TauBag94 wrote:
OhioRaiderNation wrote:

I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer



Great, glad you agree with me! tongue Took us awhile to get there...


Next I will have to convince you to forgo the red text --mein eyes are burning!
Took us a while to get there?

Tuesday at 7:24PM: "Starters have much more value than closers"
Tuesday at 7:31PM: "Again and again, I'm not saying Closers are more valuable or even as valuable as starters.  If they make him a starter, I'm not going to complain about it because the reward is HUGE"
Wednesday at 1:55PM: "STARTERS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN CLOSERS"
Wednesday at 6:14PM: "In no way, shape or form do I think a closer is more valuable than a starter" and also "Believe me.  I would love for Chapman go to to the rotation and dominate.  Being able to put Cueto, Latos and Chapman against any rotation in the playoffs would be a huge advantage for the Reds.  I'm not going to hope he fails if they move him to the rotation just so I can be right.  I just think this is a huge risk to a team that is so close to the promised land.  Again, the ideal situation would be for him to start and be successful and I'd be unbelievably happy with that"
Wednesday at 7:14PM: "I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer"

I guess you can take credit if you want, but I didn't need any convincing

So your continued posts and red text were for shits and giggles?

Ordinarily, when I agree with somebody, I just either say "I agree" or don't post.  Maybe its just a Raider thing i supposenoidea
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/18/2012 5:01 PM

RE: Changes for 2013 



TauBag94 wrote:
OhioRaiderNation wrote:
TauBag94 wrote:
OhioRaiderNation wrote:

I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer



Great, glad you agree with me! tongue Took us awhile to get there...


Next I will have to convince you to forgo the red text --mein eyes are burning!
Took us a while to get there?

Tuesday at 7:24PM: "Starters have much more value than closers"
Tuesday at 7:31PM: "Again and again, I'm not saying Closers are more valuable or even as valuable as starters.  If they make him a starter, I'm not going to complain about it because the reward is HUGE"
Wednesday at 1:55PM: "STARTERS ARE MORE VALUABLE THAN CLOSERS"
Wednesday at 6:14PM: "In no way, shape or form do I think a closer is more valuable than a starter" and also "Believe me.  I would love for Chapman go to to the rotation and dominate.  Being able to put Cueto, Latos and Chapman against any rotation in the playoffs would be a huge advantage for the Reds.  I'm not going to hope he fails if they move him to the rotation just so I can be right.  I just think this is a huge risk to a team that is so close to the promised land.  Again, the ideal situation would be for him to start and be successful and I'd be unbelievably happy with that"
Wednesday at 7:14PM: "I will say again, I hope he is able to become a starter and be dominant because a starter is more valuable than a closer"

I guess you can take credit if you want, but I didn't need any convincing

So your continued posts and red text were for shits and giggles?

Ordinarily, when I agree with somebody, I just either say "I agree" or don't post.  Maybe its just a Raider thing i supposenoidea
WOW... Now I know why they invented the "ignore" button
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/18/2012 10:20 PM

Re: Changes for 2013 




---------------------------------------------
--- DCillini wrote:

IMHO the Reds will sign Madson or Broxton and attempt to make Chapman a starter. If by early July, the experiment hasn't had the desired results then the Reds could easily move him back to the bullpen (much easier to convert a starter to reliever than vice versa). I would send Leake to AAA in an attempt to have him continue to progress or until he would be needed with the big club.

The other possibility I could see for Leake is to possibly package him with Stubbs to Minnesota for Denard Span (he is signed thru 2014 with a club option for 2015, which gives Hamilton 2 years before he would be needed to patrol CF). Not sure the Twins would go for that trade so it may require a sweetner, such as prospect.
OhioRaiderNation wrote:
DocBuc wrote: Closers are way overrated guys. Just look at the salary difference between starters and closers. Look at WAR too. Do you guys realize that Arroyo basically had the same WAR as Chapmanthis year?
Again and again, I'm not saying Closers are more valuable or even as valuable as starters.  If they make him a starter, I'm not going to complain about it because the reward is HUGE.  I just think you are playing with fire by trying to make him a starter.  He has had some arm problems in the bullpen, I have my doubts he can get stretched out and survive for 200 innings


---------------------------------------------
We are very much on the same page.

1) package Leake / Stubbs for Span. If a sweetener is needed so be it.
2) sing Broxton & Madson
3) extend / lock up Latos & Bailey
4) move Chapman to the rotation
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/19/2012 5:25 AM

Re: Changes for 2013 



gsnuts wrote:
We are very much on the same page.

1) package Leake / Stubbs for Span. If a sweetener is needed so be it.
2) sing Broxton & Madson
3) extend / lock up Latos & Bailey
4) move Chapman to the rotation
That would be a fine offseason.  I would keep Chapman in the bullpen, but that topic has already been exhausted.  I would just worry about the economics unless the ownership group is ready to open the checkbook again.  The payroll last season ran in the $88M range.  $74M is committed before options and arbitration raises.  Even if Madson's option is not picked up and he is resigned, he will likely cost you in the $8M range, Broxton made $4M last year, so he would probably cost in the $5M range, Span will cost another $2.75M (his salary minus those of Stubbs & Leake).  Latos & Bailey are due for significant raises (or extensions) along with other Arbitration eligible guys.  I'd put their value in the $15M range.

Let's add all that up.  $74M+$8M+$5M+$2.75M+$15M = $104.75M.  I'd love for them to run the payroll up that high.  If they do decide to raise the payroll, one change I'd like to see in your plan is to sign Broxton to be the closer, let Madson walk and see what Bray and Masset have next year.  Relievers can always be had at the deadline if the bullpen turns out to be a weakness.  This extra $8M would give you money to either resign Ludwick or sign a solid new LF
Reply | Quote

Posted: 10/20/2012 12:46 PM

Re: Changes for 2013 


What would Chapmans innings cap be?  150?  He wouldn't be as useful as a regular starter even if he puts up good numbers and doesn't get hurt.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
< Prev.  Page of 5  Next >