So Who Moves and Who Stays?

[tlakes20]

So obviously it's clear the Reds are out of contention and they have some chips to play with at the trade deadline. To me it's these guys that are up for grabs.

Leake, Cueto, Chapman, Bruce, Phillips, Pena, Byrd.

Cueto is a definite as much as I hate to see him leave, it will happened because there is no way the Reds have the money to give to him. They could get a haul of prospects in return. I'd say chances of him being traded are probably 95%.

Leake kind of up in the air, he's a young talent probably a good back end of the rotation guy for another team could bring some value to another team. Contract up after this year. I'd say 50 50 shot of being traded but that's just me.

Chapman would bring a good haul just like Cueto, there are rumors that Toronto wants both. The bullpen is pretty thin on the Reds part, unlike the starting pitching which the Reds have a lot of young depth at. For the right price yes, I would say they should trade, but would like to see them hold onto him. I'd say there's 30-40 percent chance of him being traded. Ideally the Reds would like to try to keep him to see what the team is like next year.

Bruce I actually think could have some trade value. Fairly team friendly contract, he can hit when he wants but extremely streaky. I'd say he's a good trade chip for the Reds to try and move. I'd say it's about a 50 50 chance he's traded.

Phillips is older and will make a lot of money coming up. He still produces good offense and is the best in the game defensively. Don't know if the Reds will move him though unless they are willing to pay some money. I'd say less than 30% he's traded.

Pena and Byrd I would say should be on the move. Pena is pretty versatile being able to play 1st and catcher I'd say try and get what you can for him because he'll be up after this year. Whoever you can get for Byrd just give him to someone. 100% on Byrd, 75% on Pena.

Those are just my assumptions going in, it's pretty much a crap shoot trying to predict the trade deadline. I'd say Hamilton, Frazier, and Votto are pretty much the only guys untouchable

 

[JohnU]

Cueto will be gone soon but I'd bet it is to the AL-West. I can't see him going to an NL contender. Any guess is as good as that, but I would wager the deal is all done, just haven't pulled the trigger on it yet.

Leake -- for my money -- isn't worth the effort. He gets a qualifying offer and either takes it or goes. I like the guy but he's not gonna win you a pennant.

Chapman ... hard to tell ... anybody who is looking for a closer would be interested. Chappy is worth more than a couple of prospects since he can be a starter if he chooses to be. It's not like the guy's best years are behind him.

Bruce is worth keeping since he is comparatively cheap, still under contract ... and does anybody know who is better? Negron, Schumaker or some other combination of outfielders. Byrd is a filler anyhow. He has a performance clause so he won't be traded, probably.

Pena probably won't be back pending the results of Mesoraco's surgery. With Barnhart showing he is ready, really ... Pena's value is in his smile. He might get a 1-year offer.


Phillips has noplace to go.

 

[eburg5000]

Hell, the way Jocketty makes deals. He might trade all of them to the Phillies for a minor leaguer to be named later

 

[Hit-n-Run]

My first thought is that Castellini isn't a blow it up and start over sort of owner. I really only see the Reds trading the pending FA's. Cueto or Leake paired with someone like Pena or Parra maybe to make a better package to get more in return.

 

[JohnU]

I think the Reds are trying to prop up their prospects now that it's clear some of them will be on the short list moving forward. Winker and Stephenson are getting rave reviews.

What I do not see the Reds doing is working to find a reliable LEFTHANDER for the pitching rotation. Seeing that Leake and Cueto are likely to be gone and the staff for 2016 is DeSlafani, Lorenzen, Moscot and Iglesias, assuming Bailey can pitch ... the only lefty who can get anybody out evidently is too valuable to use as a starter.

And if I have to gag on Cingrani again, please order me a funeral plot.

 

[JohnU]

And of course we have ..........................

Reds recall pitcher Jumbo Diaz; option pitcher Carlos Contreras

The Reds recalled pitcher Jumbo Diaz from Triple-A on Friday, the team announced. Diaz produced a 6.65 ERA over 23 innings of work earlier this season.

To make room for Diaz, the team optioned pitcher Carlos Contreras to Triple-A. Contreras has a 6.08 ERA over 13 1/3 innings of work this season.

 

[eburg5000]

Can't wait to see him in there!.......why is Leake starting tonight rather than Cueto? Most teams turn over their rotation after the AllStar break.

 

[JohnU]

I would guess Cueto and Price are not BFF's these days after his tantrum for being taken out for a pinch hitter on Sunday.

 

[Redsfan1507]

No one knows until it's done...but here's my position:

The Reds have to keep payroll at where it is approx. $110M/yr) or lower. If Votto, Bailey, and Phillips (IMO the 3 that can't be traded without taking a contract bath) make $ 55M of that, and they have only 3 others making $8M/yr ($24M)that only leaves $31M to pay the other 19 guys. Even if you have the most productive farm in MLB, and always have 6 rookies making $500k or less ($3M) , that means the 13 players left average a shade over $2M/ yr.

You the kind of player that makes $2M today? A pre-arbitration eligible young guy for a year or so, and if hes a veteran MLB - hes a scrub- a utility infielder or 5th OF. Hannahan, Marquis type guys. Half a team of them.

To be honest, they can't keep anyone else making Votto-Bailey money-either currently on the team, or trading for them, or in the future as long as Votto and Bailey draw their check...goven the current budget. If they can sign Mesoraco or Frazier or whoever for 2-3 yr extensions for $$25/$35 it's a value, but one that means they have to fill 1 of the 3 $8M/yr spots, or the 19 other guys have to reduce that less than $2M each price. It's going to be tough to do that and have enough talent to win,IMO.

I think the lesson learned should be, you can't get on the contract hook for one guy for 10 years. If you pay a guy $20M a year for 3-5 years, there is light at the end of the tunnel- for 10, it's just to much to budget a winner on unless you can draw 3 million fans a year at premium price, or get a few billion in a cable deal.

I would NOT trade Cueto for rental bullshit value. If someone of his talent were to be drafted, they would likely be a 1st or 2nd round pick...so I would not trade them for a 29th round prospect and a 32 year old utility guy. I would hold him to the end of season, and take the compensation pick in the draft - basically a late first round ametuer pick. Yes, it may be 3-5 years before he gets to the big club, but he has a chance if being a Cueto, Votto, Frazier, Mesoraco, type player when he gets there-the trade deadline garbage players probably being offered, will never be.

So, I don't buy into no deals yet because the Reds are stubborn, I think it's because teams are trying to get Reds stars for nothing.

Chapman is a different case- he's got 2 years and isn't overpaid on his contract. He can get real talent in trade. The Reds are STUPID for not putting him in the starting rotation, and don't need him on a 100 loss rebuild. It's a shame, but he's the best return value if they are trading.

So many Reds problems are due to having to make accommodation for previous mistakes. It's going to take, IMO, a lot of money, some time, and better front office brainpower, to fix it.

 

[JohnU]

I think you nailed it on perceptions that the other teams are gambling that the Reds will take next to "anybody" in exchange for Cueto ... and this is where the guys at the table are watching each other to see who blinks first.
If they can't get some horses for Cueto, why bother to trade him? The answer to that is whether the Reds GM has enough faith in getting a comp round draft pick. One would assume that such a pick won't be ready for the bigs for a couple of years, at least.
Cueto is not a salary dump so we need to stop seeing it from that perspective. Neither is Leake. These guys do not have contracts.

 

[JohnU]

Still another stiff out of the bullpen. Now I see Jimbo Diaz is back.
Hell, the guys nobody wants can all end up in the Reds clubhouse.
Where in fuck did they find Nate Adcock and Ryan Mattheus?

 

[TKOSpikes]

Wondering what you guys think of a Blue Jays package of Jeff Hoffman, Daniel Norris, Dalton Pompey, Miguel Castro and maybe Navarro.

Would that be enough for a Cueto, Bruce, Chapman package?

 

[JohnU]

Too many players, I think.

 

[redsfan03]

Honestly, if I were the Reds I would think strongly about trading Frazier. His value will never be higher. He's 29, at the top of his game, received quite a bit of publicity for winning the Derby, and most importantly has a team-friendly contract. If they extend him, they run into a Brandon Phillips type situation where he will be paid significantly more than his production warrants by the end of the contract. I know he's a fan favorite, but this team is in desperate need of going younger and cheaper. Frazier won't be doing either and the Reds could get really good return on him. However, I would be shocked if this front office has the cojones to pull such a move.

Cueto's a goner for sure. The Reds won't keep him and take the compensatory pick. If you look at recent trades of ace pitchers, such as the Jeff Samardzjia trade last year, the selling team got very good return. All it takes is a team desperate enough to go all-in, and you can get quite a haul. Hopefully, the Reds can get something similar for Cueto, though Jocketty does not strike me as very adept at selling.

Leake may be gone, but I'm not sure they'll get much for him. He's at best a number two, but more likely a number three pitcher. A rental number three pitcher does nor typically generate much on the market, I would imagine.

Chapman's an interesting one. If the Reds plan on keeping him in the bullpen, I say trade him. What's the point in having a dominant closer when he only gets an opportunity to do his job for one out of every 27 innings? I've always believed that his place is in the rotation, but if he and the organization are so adamantly opposed to that then his value is largely wasted. As for what trading Chapman does to the bullpen, our bullpen sucks with or without him. Big downside to trading him is that his presence puts butts in the seats.

Byrd and Pena could both be traded for a toilet plunger to be named later. Neither will generate much return. The only benefit to getting rid of them would be possibly losing some of the contract burden.

I think the Reds should hold on to Bruce. He has a fairly team-friendly contract and the outfield situation is bad enough. The potential replacements for him in the minors are not close to being ready, so I say hold on to him for at least another year.

Votto, Phillips, Hamilton, Bailey, and Mesoraco are all what I would consider unmovable. They're not going anywhere. Frazier is probably included in that list from the vantage point of the front office, but as I said earlier, I think they should consider trading him.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Lots of good sense above...but, the Reds still have to stay in the black...it's not like they can just sell off, tighten the belt for 5 years and rebuild- they have a pretty expensive payroll they can't trade- Votto, Bailey, Phillips and Mesoraco cost them more than several recent low dollar MLB team payrolls. So, IMO, they won't trade Frazier for a year or two, and probably won't trade Bruce unless they get overwhelmed, which I don't believe will happen.

The real problem with Bruce isn't his year end stats, it's that he isn't really going to help win many games for 75% of the season...the other 25% of the time, he hits like you wish he would the entire year...but it never happens. He 's a 8 week off, 2 week on kind of hitter...but he's a walking milk commercial, and is a recognizable ticket seller.

I think the obvious 2016 infield is Votto, Phillips, Frazier, Cozart, Suarez, and another backup to be named later. Mesoraco and Barnhart will catch. I think Dominguez can hit a little- I vote for him, instead of some vet at $2M that can't hit any better.

I think the Reds will have Hamilton and Bruce in the OF, and will try to trade Byrd, but I doubt any team is going to pay his salary or pick up a $9M option next year. I hope they bring up a farmhand or two to play LF, or get one in trade, instead of signing another double digit million old guy. I'd rather spend Byrd's $9M on extending Frazier or Chapman.

The bench, IMO, is insignificant. They can pick up the same low talent caliber players they've routinely signed in any spring training year, or use minor leaguers at a fraction of the cost.

The pitching staff is what's really going to change, IMO. Regretfully, it's going to be bad in 2016, IMO. ... Bailey, IF/when back from TJ will be the #1 option, followed by DeSclafani, Lorenzen, Igalsias and the fifth starter ??? Maybe a trade piece, or Moscot or Stephenson, Cingrani ? ... Or another cheap vet batting tee like Marquis again. The biggest issue may be, how long until these low IP babes start blowing elbows ??

Actually, if healthy the SP may be pretty good- but the bullpen BLOWS.

Even weak offenses load up on lefty hitters against the Reds righty pitching. It's embarrassingly obvious to everyone but the Reds, their desperate need for a LHSP with more than 1 strike pitch.

Personally I would make Chapman the #1 SP, and pick another closer, but assuming they keep Chapman, and assuming the blinders are still on whoever in the Reds organization is in charge of ignoring the obvious, he''s probably the closer. Hoover has pitched well enough for another shot, but the rest of this bullpen are a crapshoot, but Badenhop has a 2 year deal. I'd say he's back regardless.

Cueto, Leake, Pena and Parra are free agents the Reds can't afford. Either by trade or end of season walkoff, they are all goners. I think Schumaker's contract may be up too...I hope so. It isn't just old guys dragging this team, I also hope to see DeJesus get the axe too- he can't hit, run or field-no wonder he's been a minor leaguer for 10 years. Boesch was a waste of a couple Million dollars.

 

[rmilia1]

Big talk in Cubs circles is that they want either Hamels or Cueto. We for sure have the pieces to gain either. Personally I'd much rather get Cueto. What do you think you guys would need from us?

 

[JohnU]

Prevailing logic is that dealing inside the division in a pennant race is a no-no, but in the case of the Reds, it's hard to say. I got no reason for thinking this but I'd wager Hamels is a Cub ahead of Cueto. I think the logic puts Cueto in Houston, who can afford him.

THE PROBLEM with Cueto is that anybody who gets him now in a trade automatically gets into a bidding war, basically with themselves ... in trying to keep him. If a team wants to make post-season NOW, they go for Cueto. That might be Houston or Detroit.

The team that can afford to lose him at year's end ... maybe the Royals. No way the Royals try to sign him.

The Cubs are not going to catch the Cards and the Parrots. They might have a mathematical chance of it, but they won't.

So do the Cubs just wait and bid on Cueto's services in December? Could be ...

IF a deal with the Cubs were made, I would want at least Jorge Soler and ... dunno ... whatever prospects there are ... who knows about that? Personally I like Starlin Casto's skills if he would be willing to move to the outfield. I am in a minority about him, though.

By Tuesday, Cueto may be on the boat out of town. He's pitched poorly too often this year, begged off a couple of starts, threw a tantrum ... he's clearly kicking open the door for Price to tell Walt ... let's make the trade.

 

[rmilia1]

Prevailing logic is that dealing inside the division in a pennant race is a no-no, but in the case of the Reds, it's hard to say. I got no reason for thinking this but I'd wager Hamels is a Cub ahead of Cueto. I think the logic puts Cueto in Houston, who can afford him.

THE PROBLEM with Cueto is that anybody who gets him now in a trade automatically gets into a bidding war, basically with themselves ... in trying to keep him. If a team wants to make post-season NOW, they go for Cueto. That might be Houston or Detroit.

The team that can afford to lose him at year's end ... maybe the Royals. No way the Royals try to sign him.

The Cubs are not going to catch the Cards and the Parrots. They might have a mathematical chance of it, but they won't.

So do the Cubs just wait and bid on Cueto's services in December? Could be ...

IF a deal with the Cubs were made, I would want at least Jorge Soler and ... dunno ... whatever prospects there are ... who knows about that? Personally I like Starlin Casto's skills if he would be willing to move to the outfield. I am in a minority about him, though.

By Tuesday, Cueto may be on the boat out of town. He's pitched poorly too often this year, begged off a couple of starts, threw a tantrum ... he's clearly kicking open the door for Price to tell Walt ... let's make the trade.

My problem ( as a Cubs fan ) is that we seem focused on pitching instead of secruing another bat. Since May 1st the Cubs may have the best 3 staffs in baseball as it pertains to pitching. Id love to get Cueto but only if they can get a bat from the Reds as well. The good part is the farm system is so deep we can afford to make that kind of trade and even if we lose Cueto it may still be a risk worth taking IF they can get a bat along with him

 

[JohnU]

If the Reds had a bat to trade, I can assure you the divisional races would be much different.

 

[chico ruiz]

i want to apologize in advance for the length of this post to all fellow posters, but i recently read a espn article by crasnick that made me reconsider my reluctance to make a particular follow-up posting. most of the article was about reds mgr. price being on the hot seat. the usual lowbrow stuff mlb managers endure and expect every year. but, this excerpt piqued my interest. " the reds (39-47) are 15 1/2 games behind the st. louis cardinals in the division and 7 1/2 games out in the wild-card race. speculation persists that general manager walt jocketty is exploring trades that could send veterans johnny cueto, mike leake, aroldis chapman, jay bruce and marlon byrd packing while acquiring young talent to hasten a rebuild in cincinnati." so says, crasnick. i think to myself: how and why does a mlb club arrive -supposedly- at such a potential mass hysterically transacted blood letting of talent? is it necessary? could it have been avoided? 'hasten a rebuild.' sounds kind of desperate and scary to me. they had to 'hasten' a rebuild when the flood waters receded. a hastened rebuild was required for john and mary doe, otherwise they'd be homeless. the insurance co. can't honor the policy. my particular over-used favorite - 'fire sale.' sounds like everything was destroyed because some cheery boozehound flicked a cigarette. so, once again and finally, i delve into the delusional concept that the fire or flood should have been prevented or at least partially contained and minimized.

crazy-ass mixed metaphors aside, there are some points i've been making that apparently are not being understood, or i'm not articulating effectively enough. it's probably the latter due to my parenthetical and capitalization negation, or mind boggling aversion to said. preface - all my criticisms of jocketty have basically been comparative analysis constructs v. other mid and small market gms. however, (reapologizing) i think more specificity is needed to fill some apparent gaps (in so far as, my very humble, humbled, and continued humbling thoughts) on this subject. all i ask is to please give it a thoughtful read, and keep the following disclaimer in mind; i'm not a twitter following 'fire jocketty now' signer, or devotee of such unthoughtful bursts of overly dramatic abhorrence spewing. on the contrary, i'm a reds lover with a mind for critical thought and the realities of contemporary professional baseball. examining complexity is tiring and difficult, but in order to sustain progress and success, i'm rarely motivated to write only about uncomplicated story lines that ignore the recent past. to do otherwise, would give into the notion that the reds are doomed to repeat it, or that i'm being arrogant.

one poster wrote, 'if a long-range plan had begun as you (me) apparently assume should have been, the current reds talent should have been identified 8 years ago -- or when most of them were just entering junior high school.'

nonsense. i did not remotely imply this, although hopefully some of that talent has been identified by now. in fact, eight years ago krivsky (not jocketty) drafted & signed mesoraco, frazier, and cozart. i was referring to a stockpiling of prospects (more detail on this to come), by whatever means necessary; trades, signings, drafts, theft, etc., a better analytics team, and improving the farm system overall. these are all musts for mid and small mkt. orgs. that want to sustain competitively. it's been this way for well over a decade now. regardless, it was a absurd statement and really shouldn't warrant a reply. but, it has compelled me to be more comprehensive. btw, barnhart? really? hey, i like the kid. i hope he does well. but, putting him in the same group with mesoraco, frazier, and cozart?????? the poster also mentions hamilton (a 2009 draftee along with boxberger and barnhart) as if he's a success story. i wish these players much success, but i believe in being honest and appraising accurately. i remember that draft well. reds also got leake. that same year the cardinals drafted matt carpenter, matt adams, shelby miller, joe kelly, and trevor rosenthal. but, here's the most salient question: how is it that those 5 (count 'em - five) seem like seasoned veterans and hamilton has the feel of a rookie still learning how to hit mlb pitching? was that just the luck of the draw or, did the cards do their research? do they have magic fairy dust they sprinkle on these guys in the minor leagues or, do they have a strong development staff from rookie league to aaa? the cardinals aren't the only organization stronger than the reds in scouting, and on the farms. i'm not laying it all at walter's feet; just most of it. the same poster writes, 'the scouting system also has to work' like it's somehow separate from the gm. overseeing scouting is part of the gm's job description. it's a necessarily intrinsic relationship, and more importantly, i get the sense that, in general, most other teams have a clearer alignment through their scouting and player development in how that assembly line works, from finding it, to developing it, to transitioning it to the big leagues. the truth is, of all the draftees during walt's time, with cincinnati, only one reds draftee / player can be called a legitimate success at the mlb level; mike leake. paul daugherty recently wrote, " jocketty’s expertise isn’t in scouting. he’s an administrator and, as he would tell you, a good one. without jocketty’s moves, the reds probably don’t win the nl central in 2010 or 2012. his best work has always been in adding firepower to teams that are good already. jocketty and his staff have done a fine job adding pitching quality and depth. the 2015 reds are mediocre, at best. where might they be without michael lorenzen, anthony desclafani and raisel iglesias? and contrary to public belief, jocketty didn’t orchestrate joey votto’s mega-contract, or the deals given brandon phillips and homer bailey. it wasn’t his money. what he’s attempting now is different. the reds re-boot is all about getting younger and cheaper, not adding potentially pricey veterans. 'i'm not on vacation,' jocketty said thursday. he said sometimes being away from the office is best for him, 'because you’re not influenced by people around the club.' jocketty has put that belief to good use this year. early in july, he spent five days in london, visiting his daughter. in june, he stayed several days at his arizona home. when I suggested being away from the office, especially now, might not be perceived favorably, jocketty said, 'i don’t care what the perception is.' " based on walt's performance with the reds, i get the impression that he doesn't play well with others. i read a mlb article recently that suggested a reds trade with the astros was very unlikely, if not impossible, because walt's relationship with luhnow is one of enmity. i also wonder why walt's plug-in signings seemed to draw from a smaller pool of players, that had one time been in his employ. it always appeared to be a narrower more limited scope than other gm's deployed around mlb. there's not playing well with others, then there's burning bridges, and -by extension- organizations. i thought the hiring of kevin towers was ill-advised and had no possibility of infusing new blood, or any much needed antithetical views to the upper management think-tank. management hires don't get much attention, but for daugherty to question overall organizational continuity is fair and appropriate.

same poster wrote: "I guess I just don't grasp your (my) assertion that the ownership group had any reason to build a working long-range plan in a market that could simply not be identified at the time."

of course there was a identifiable market, that's part of the reason jocketty was let go by st. louis. and what could possibly be wrong or unsound with putting a working long-range plan, approach, strategy, or system in place? you write about this like it's a unattainable goal or some magical oz-like entity. why do you think the market couldn't be identified? michael lewis identified it in 2002, and he wasn't a baseball insider. i use him only because he's popularly identifiable. it's not about the amount of money they have to work with. it's about understanding that fluctuating, but definable, market and making calculated decisions 3 - 4 - even 5 years out to, for one thing, keep the farm system stocked with alternatives. friedman, sabean, mozeliak, huntington, and now luhnow have all proven that. duquette, silverman, and moore are doing things that jocketty is not. beane does it a little differently. but, god knows, he's not afraid to make a decision, even if its a unpopular one. and it's precisely because the a's and the reds aren't the yankees that tough unpopular moves must be made. a strong argument can be made that in 2012 or 2013 cueto, bailey, chapman, or latos should have been traded for prospects. one thing specifically i noticed -successful mid and small market gm's starting to do 10 years ago- was the stockpiling of starting pitching. they quickly, and correctly, identified how overpriced that market was, and they have found a way to not only develop enough to fill their own rotation, but create a surplus to use as commodity in trade. walt identified this too. the problem is, he was a decade, or more, late in his recognition.

(continued - next post)