The Other 15

I see that the Dept. of Taking Everything Literally Inspector has arrived on the scene. I've been subpoenad to change my post. Dear DTEL, I meant that I had never seen so many positive posts about a .325 OBP player on this site before - no matter what his potential. I'll fax the revisions to your office in triplicate.

Half those guys will amount to nothing. Brett Wallace's 200 professional ABs really has you writing him in the lineup for the next 10 years? Daryl Jones? Jesse Todd? If you're only going to worry about what a guy did last season, what's Rasmus doing on there when he sucked out loud last year? Thank you for beating me to that post.

Fair enough, we can remove Affeldt from the core of the Reds. My final statement on this (since I'm tired of making a point on the Reds behalf) is that if the question is "who is there to fear more in the NL Central," I will say that no one is the correct answer. When the question becomes, "Who has more talent and can become a threat in the foreseeable future- Reds or Cards?" My answer is the Reds. Outside of Pujols (no age necessary), Ankiel (28), Ludwick (29), Molina (25) and Wainwright (26), there is nothing on that roster that can sustain long term success without a new infusion of talent. Especially on the pitching side. That roster, without further infusion of talent, has reached its potential. I don't know what the potential of the Reds is, but I can see that they have room for growth.

Your quoting and/or statements are extremely confusing. Thanks for the input. Well why are you writing both sides of the story? Help me out. I don't understand what you mean.

Well, if all we are going on is "maybe they'll all improve," then what can be said about them that can't be said about any team? Every team has players that "maybe could get better." But when you project what the Reds have, it's nothing special, just a lot of young adequacy. If you believe that, that's fine. But there are people that believe a guy (Votto) who in his first major league season, at age 24, put up .297/.368/.506/124 OPS+ is not considered "adequacy". If you don't like Bruce, that's fine, but show be where he doesn't project to being "special". I said Bruce replaced Dunn, that's pretty special. A 124 OPS from a first baseman is very, very adequate and very nothing special. From a SS it'd be awe-inspiring. From a 1B, it's blah. In Vottos first season (i hate to have to continue repeating this as if it's not significant), he put up the 8th best OPS among 1B's in the major leagues. Bruce replaces Dunn? He's 21, and his cieling is much higher than a HR hitter that gets about 120 hits per season. The fact that he can play CF (and the corner spots as well) makes him potentially very special. Bruce will hit for a higher average than Dunn and could very well get his slugging percentage to Dunn's level. However, his OBP will probably be significantly lower than Dunn. Votto is solid. Encarnacion doesn't hurt the offense, but he sure as hell hurts them defensively. Phillips has good power for a middle infielder, but will most likely always have a mediocre or bad OBP. Despite what he showed in limited action last season, Dickerson isn't going to hit for a lot of power. Keppinger is terrible. They'll get no offense from the catcher position. When you consider that they lost their best power and on-base threat from last season and that they were a mediocre offense last year with him, they probably won't be that great offensively this year, even with improvements from Bruce and Votto. Can't say I dsagree with much of this except that i don;t see them missing Dunn as much with Bruces continued improvement. If he does hit for higher average and does approach Dunns SLG, he will be more important despite a lower OBP. Sort of like Soriano to Dunn. Dunn gets 70 more BB's than Sori, but Fons gets 50 more hits. Both have value. The wildcard, as I see it, for the 2009 Reds is weather Cueto and Harang can help Volquez form a tough 1-2-3 rotation. If they do, the loss of Dunn will certainly be greatly minimized.

I reasonably disagree because I think that they have a nice young nucleus of position players and pitchers that has room to grow. I didn't see it as nasty and hope we could have more conversations about the Reds in the Peavy thread :D .

I find it rather humorous that you used the word "horses" in relation to a team that Dusty Baker manages. That is all. Carry on. One hour and twenty nine minutes until the first Dusty reference follows my dare. I'm a bit surprised.

Nicely done.

Well, if all we are going on is "maybe they'll all improve," then what can be said about them that can't be said about any team? Every team has players that "maybe could get better." But when you project what the Reds have, it's nothing special, just a lot of young adequacy. If you believe that, that's fine. But there are people that believe a guy (Votto) who in his first major league season, at age 24, put up .297/.368/.506/124 OPS+ is not considered "adequacy". If you don't like Bruce, that's fine, but show be where he doesn't project to being "special". I said Bruce replaced Dunn, that's pretty special. A 124 OPS from a first baseman is very, very adequate and very nothing special. From a SS it'd be awe-inspiring. From a 1B, it's blah. In Vottos first season (i hate to have to continue repeating this as if it's not significant), he put up the 8th best OPS among 1B's in the major leagues. He finished 8th among 1B's in OBP and 10th in SLG. I'm sorry, I disagree that that's just "blah" for a 1B. Bruce replaces Dunn? He's 21, and his cieling is much higher than a HR hitter that gets about 120 hits per season. The fact that he can play CF (and the corner spots as well) makes him potentially very special.

Your quoting and/or statements are extremely confusing. Thanks for the input.

Well, if all we are going on is "maybe they'll all improve," then what can be said about them that can't be said about any team? Every team has players that "maybe could get better." But when you project what the Reds have, it's nothing special, just a lot of young adequacy. If you believe that, that's fine. But there are people that believe a guy (Votto) who in his first major league season, at age 24, put up .297/.368/.506/124 OPS+ is not considered "adequacy". If you don't like Bruce, that's fine, but show be where he doesn't project to being "special".

Before this turns into one of these stupid pissing contests that everyone likes to engage in, I'd like to reiterate my original point. If offense is taken, my apologies. The Reds are a team that has room for growth. Of course, they can be horrible again but they have the talent to get much better. They have a couple of good young hitters, ages 21 and 24, both of whom have better ceilings than a one dimensional Dunn. They have a couple of frustratingly tantalizing talents aged 25 and 27, that are capable of putting up very good seasons. They have a couple of young horses in their rotation that could grow into a formidable rotation with just averageness around them. Granted, I'm not all that impressed by Arroyo but Harrang is 30 and coming off of a extremely poor season for a guy with his history. When did 31 and 30 become too old? No, Affeldt is nothing special, but he has the ability to put up a great season and Cordero is a solid end of the rotation. They have a lot of pieces in place that can become a threat if they over perform like the Cardinals did last year. They don't have Pujols or LaRussa or Dunn but they have room to be much better than the current cast in St Louis. That's all.

Votto's as good as he's going to get, which is a decent hitter for a first baseman. Dickerson's minor league numbers translate to extreme averageness. Bruce's ceiling is to replace what they were already getting from Dunn. So it has been written.

Good try, but "the Reds are horrible" is just too tough of a argument to fight. There is no room for growth from Dickerson, Votto, and a guy named,...what's his name,...Bay Jruce (or something like that). Encarnacion and Phillips should only be seen as dangerous of putting up good seasons if they were traded to the Cardinals. Neither Volquez or Cueto have any room for improvement. Harang has no chance to improve on last season. Cordero and Affeldt are really nothing special in the pen.

Cardianls, Shmardinals! Seriously, this has got to stop by people that see themselves as intelligent about the game. The Amazing LaRussio and the Fabulous Flying Duncanio can squeeze every ounce of talent out of that wet rag team they assembled and they won't come close to matching last years lucky run. I write this in fear that it may start another three pages about how Khalil Greene is likely to put up a amazing season. The most talented team (outside of the Cubs) is the Reds. If there is any "scarying" going on, it should be from them. They have the talent to play at a unprecedented level. The Cards do not. If and when their young players put it together, they will be scary. We all know their manager never led a team to the playoffs or contention so let the Dusty references begin.

I don't understand why people are having a hard time believing that a very expensive disgruntled star player can be traded for below perceived market value. The new ownership, and any other detail that people might believe will change Towers' will to trade him does not account that Peavy want to be traded. He does own the NTC, therefore, he does have a lot of control. If it's true that the Cubs are really his only choice, it really isn't that hard to see a trade happening if the Cubs can afford him. What should GM's take from this? Well, if you can't outright collude on money, you certainly could collude on contract perks like NTC which hurt the team more than they help.

The penis envy of everything that Theo does is amazing. On a site where if your mom doesn't have a OBP of .375+ she should be disowned, Baldelli gets the treatment of some amazing stud. OK.

Sean Gallagher is a table scrap? Considering what you usually have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher via trade, yes. You mean considering what you have to give up to get an ace caliber pitcher who is constantly hurt. It's notl ike we traded for Sabathia. Anyways, it doesn't matter. The player you're trading for doesn't change what a player is. Gallagher is a not a "table scrap" in any situation. Just to be clea,r I liked the trade. I'm just saying Gallagher is not a table scrap. So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I like Gallagher, too, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't have a future with the Cubs so by giving him up we didn't give up any value. He was, for all intents and purposes, one of three spare parts we gave up for an outstanding young pitcher. With all due respect to his Dad or whatever, I reiterate, table scraps. You shouldn't worry. Everyone with a IQ higher than a argumentative 6th grader looking for attention understood what you meant.

Breathe. It's way too early to be out on the ledge. The guy has built 3 division winners in 6 years (narrowly missing a 4th). This year will offer some very interesting players at the deadline and Hendry has shown he's not shy to play that game.

Moorad declined comment when asked how he would shape the Padres operations. He said he would have no influence on the club's decision either to trade ace Jake Peavy or take him off the market. The Padres have talked of reducing their payroll by some 40 percent, and they have shopped Peavy, who can block a trade and is guaranteed $63 million over the next four years. Peavy and Axelrod were pissed the deal with the Cubs fell through. He wants out now and one way or another he will be wearing another uniform by spring training or June.

We understand? Are you having a team meeting in your head? Try to tell the guy that thinks he needs to lecture people on message board decorum to shut the hell up. You don't like the way I post, how's this for a crazy idea? Don't respond. Just ignore me.

I think people are more upset that we used one of our top pitching prospects/trading pieces in Ceda, not that they're afraid he's going to be great. Because Fuentes isn't really an injury risk? Why would the Cubs want Fuentes when they didn't want Wood? Your answer is health? Having a young, lights out closer that costs next to nothing on their roster had nothing to do with their decision? We have a young, lights out reliever, and we had him last year also. He's not replacing Wood in terms of value. We're still losing a dominant reliever no matter where Marmol pitches. Marmol is on the team either way. He doesn't replace Wood, he's just going to be pitching the 9th instead of the 8th. That's beside the point anyways, and you're twisting up the conversation and making it into things that we're not even saying. I don't really understand what you're trying to do, other than maybe start problems with me again because you don't like. You asked why somebody might not want to give a multi-year deal to Wood but might want to for Fuentes. The reason is pretty obvious. Nobody ever said anything what Hendry is thinknig. We're talking about what we would do. That's where this all started. The guy wondered why we're paying 4-5 mil for Gregg when Fuentes would have costed only a little bit more this year, and would have only demande a short term contract. He understands why Hendry did it, he just doesn't agree with it. Thank God you're here to interpret. I see now. Others can agree or disagree with a decision made by a GM, but I shouldn't disagree with them? Agree to not disagree policy? Got it. Stop your whining francismorgan. Weather I like you or not, has nothing to do with anything discussed here.

I think people are more upset that we used one of our top pitching prospects/trading pieces in Ceda, not that they're afraid he's going to be great. Because Fuentes isn't really an injury risk? Why would the Cubs want Fuentes when they didn't want Wood? Your answer is health? Having a young, lights out closer that costs next to nothing on their roster had nothing to do with their decision?

Which is why Greggs contract and Fuentes' contract are completely unrelated. Gregg will get paid based on option being picked up, age, performance, and similar players, while Fuentes is getting paid by FA market standards. Surely, you can see the difference. Which brings me back to the original poster who asked "And we're paying Kevin Gregg $5 million why?" It was a poor attempt to make Greggs acquisition look worse by comparing his salary to a high priced free agent. Lastly, Gregg will not go to arbitration and will sign a contract in the range of $3.4 to $3.8 that will be the middle ground of the arb proposals by agent and team. So, trading Jose Ceda for Kevin Gregg and likely paying him $3.5-$5 million to probably suck for 1 year is better than resigning Kerry Wood to 2/$20 or Brian Fuentes to 2/$17.5 and keeping Ceda? Yes, especially when your inhouse closer is making about league minimum. Give me a break with how much Gregg will suck. He won't be the reincarnation of Rivera but he is an above average RH reliever that doesn't get hit hard or often and won't be paid a kings ransom. A year ago, Hendry was criticized for "gambling the season on a unreliable Kerry Wood" and this year he's criticized because he wouldn't give Wood a multi-year deal. I haven't seen so much paranoia over Ceda since they left Andy Sisco unprotected. That proved disastrous. Personally, I would have liked if they kept Wood. But if you can't afford Wood, why in the world would you pay Fuentes? It's not fantasy baseball and there are money limitations.