Why not trade Eric Milton?

by jambolyajones on Jul 29, 2006 2:42 AM EDT Comment 6 comments

Here is a thought that I haven't heard thrown around in all the trade talk...Why not trade Eric Milton? Here's my reasoning:

His salary: At over $9 mill/yr (and and ERA to match)we may be able to dump him on a rich team.
His lack of consistency: Luckily, he has flashes of being a top-of-the-rotation pitcher, which may make some teams willing to take him on.
Play-off Rotation: If we make the play-offs, we can win it all with 3 solid starters. I believe our #3 would be Ramirez right now, and also at the end of the season. So that makes Milton at best a #4 game starter in we made it past the first round, and at worst a $9 mill benchwarmer.
Lefties in the rotation: If Classen continues to suck when he comes back, Gosling could still take the spot as the rotation's lefty. He couldn't be much worse then Classen or Milton.
Germano: If he has a good outing on Saturday, let's just go ahead a take a chance on him the rest of the season.

For me, this all adds up to getting rid of Milton. Would anybody take his salary? There are deep pockets like the Yankees out there. Who cares if we don't get anything back? Who cares if we even have to pay some of the salary!

His signing was a mistake. This was O'Brien's coup d'etat, signing a flyball pitcher for GABP, wasting all of our luxury tax money.

It's time to fix O'Brien's mistake. Everyone is saying this pitching market is so tight right now, so let's use this to our advantage while the window is still open. Please Krivsky, it's time to dump Milton.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Milton or Mays?

This is not an organization with anything resembling pitching depth, and while Milton goes out there and sucks on a fairly regular basis, he also goes out and throws the occasional great game, which is more than I can say about some of the other fine starters we've seen just this year. He obviously has no trade value and despite his sucking, I sorta like the guy. I can't see any teams out there willing to take on his contract and I can't see any teams willing to give up anything for him, so there really wouldn't be any actual benefit to trading him. It wasn't that long ago that he was sporting an ERA around 4, and since we don't have any better options, there's not any reason to trade him. He gives us 6 innings a start and as sad as that may be, a guy who can do that is valuable for this team. We've got bigger problems than Milton on this team.

by Geki on Jul 29, 2006 3:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Milton

I would miss the Stapler picture on the redreporter blog if we got rid of him!

Reds fan for 40 years!

by gejoe on Jul 30, 2006 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dangerous Gamble

For the first time since 1999, the Reds are poised to make a run for the post-season. As much as I agree with the diary author that the signing of Milton was a mistake, originally, I would tend to favor having a veteran around as a #4 starter down the stretch with the stakes being high. You figure Milton is good for 6-7 innings and 3-5 runs allowed per game. I'm not happy but given our offense, I can live with those numbers. [Veteran Reds fans will remember the likes of Tony Cloninger, Jim McGlothlin and Bill Bonham.]

I'm far less than overwhelmed with the starting pitchers at Louisville. It'd be a big gamble to have to rely on one of those guys in high-pressure games/atmosphere in August and September every 4th starter slot game. We caught some lightning in a bottle with the surprise emergence of Elizardo Ramirez. Let's not press our luck and risk ticking off Jobu by "fixing" something that is presently serviceable, albeit, barely. <grin>

The Reds bullpen is still quite shaky. The last thing we need are two starting slots (#4 and #5) where we have to fear not getting at least 5 innings. Once Brandon "China Doll/China Syndrome" Claussen returns, we'll already have enough to worry about in the starting rotation. It can be ugly but at least Milton eats up innings.

This is likely all moot, though. I don't see Bob Castellini picking up Milton's salary even if we found a trading partner. Milton will be staying here for at least the balance of 2006.

CFred

by CFred in Westwood on Jul 29, 2006 8:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Memories

I threw those names out to just jog older fans' memories of back-end of the rotation pitchers. Mission accomplished in your case, obviously. <G>

Cloninger was pretty bad for us, wasn't he? Innings eater - - meh, semantics. He was a warm body to send out there and hopefully last 5 or 6 and maybe hit a home run. 1969 certainly qualifies my contention, 1970 less so. I guess it's merely a friendly difference of opinion between us graybeards. At any rate, at least we received Clay Carroll in that trade with the Braves that brought us Cloninger.

Bonham, when healthy, pitched after Seaver as our #2 guy in 1978 and was more or less our #4 starter in 1979. On his best days with us, he might be decidedly...average. Our hitters bailed him out on more than several occasions. At least he didn't give up too many homers but when he was off, it could be batting practice time, baby.

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Pbonhb101.htm

Nice summary of the 1970 season. Still hard to believe that only 12 runs total were scored in the NL playoffs between the Big Red Machine and the Lumber Company. I sure hated that World Series, though. Boog Powell and Brooks Robinson. Nightmares.

CFred

by CFred in Westwood on Jul 29, 2006 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who would take him?

The Reds wouldn't get jack for him and would have to pay his salary. No, it was a bad signing, and the Reds have to eat it. Fortunately, Milton is worlds better than 2005. He pitched 7 solid innings last night only giving up 3. What more can you ask for?

"Players have two things to do. Play and keep their mouths shut." -Sparky Anderson

by boohiss on Jul 29, 2006 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs