Go Big: Trade for Alex Rios
Acording to Ken Rosenthal from Foxsports the Blue Jays may be willing to part with Alex Rios. Why not make a move for Rios and let him play RF while Jay Bruce moves to LF while Taveras and Dickerson platoon in CF. The Rios is only 28 and is locked up under contract for a considerable amount of time so it may be worth it to part with the prospects and mlb talent needed to pick him up.
0 recs |
31 comments
Comments
no way are the Reds taking on an OF K
going out to 2014 for close to 50 million. They have young players that will be pushing for regular time in 2010 with Frazier and Heisey and 2011 with Alonso(possibly forcing Votto to LF).
I dont see the Reds OF as a big problem with Nix/Gomes LF/ Dickerson CF(even a Dickerson/Taveras platoon would be acceptable/ and Bruce RF.
If they dont believe in Nix- Willingham from Washington would be a nice pickup.
by davidmac84 on Jul 1, 2009 10:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
It’s not worth it to add someone who’ll not only push someone out, but also force you to give up key pieces in return.
by coocooforcocoapuffs on Jul 1, 2009 10:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pass.
This is what Rios is owed going forward:
10: $9.7M, 11:$12M, 12:$12M, 13:$12.5M, 14:$12.5M, 15:$13.5M club option ($1M buyout)
That’s a lot of loonies. Toronto won’t get anything worthwhile in return unless they pick some of that up.
Moving Bruce to left would be a waste of his arm. If anyone would play left, it’d be Rios. And he’d be blocking several players.
by ken on Jul 1, 2009 10:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Think of it this way.
Bruce has a nice arm but Rios arm is better. Platoons are good if its two legit players fighting over time but a Nix/Gomes platoon is more of a band aid than anything. It is always better to have everyday players. The Blue Jays would love to eat some of his contract just because they know Doc is going to ask for a truck load of money as a free agent. To become players in a somewhat weak central Reds need to make moves that can put them over the top because prospects are what they are… prospects. For every matt cain there is a victor zambrano. If not Rios, then someone similar like Adam Dunn, Michael Young, Mark Teahen or Peralta to name a few should be looked at in earnest.
by KobieAjani on Jul 2, 2009 12:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
but the bandaid is only needed for a year or two
and rios would be around until 2014.
Bloop
by justin007000 on Jul 2, 2009 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't make sense.
If we want Rios, it should be to put him in CF — he’s shown himself to be a very good defender there as recently as last year (albeit his sample size is fairly limited), and his bat really doesn’t play very well in a corner. We’re talking about a guy with an OPS of about .740 right now who didn’t eclipse .800 last year either. You can’t afford to take a risk on him not returning to being an .850+ OPS hitter with a contract like his. While I doubt the price in prospects would be massive if the Blue Jays were able to dump most of his contract on someone, I think somebody more productive could be had in FA after the season at half the cost, and I’m pretty much positive that adding Alex Rios does not make this a playoff team. The Blue Jays regret the $60 million or so remaining on his contract; why would the Reds want to give themselves an opportunity to regret that as well? As has already been mentioned, the Reds have loads of quality minor-league outfield depth, and if we weren’t stuck with offensive black holes at half the other spots on the diamond, I don’t think anybody would be unhappy with our LF platoon. Yes, we can improve upon it, but there are at least three other spots on the field that need to be addressed in some way before we address that one.
I’m also curious…what the hell does “for every matt cain there is a victor zambrano” mean? Matt Cain was a hotshot prospect who was drafted by the Giants organization and remains there today. Victor Zambrano got signed as an amateur FA in 1993 by the Yankees, signed again by the Rays in 1996, and was traded to the Mets in a deadline deal in 2004 for hotshot prospect Scott Kazmir. Zambrano was never particularly highly regarded and never more than an average starter with terrible control. The trade was highly criticized at the time because the Mets gave up a great prospect for a player that wasn’t going to elevate them to a higher level even in a best case scenario. Zambrano lasted about 200 innings with the Mets, and has been on 5 different teams with a total of 13 appearances since then. That was one of the worst trades of the decade (if not one of the worst trades in baseball history). I see no similarity to Matt Cain and, if anything, the mere mention of Victor Zambrano should help deter the Reds from dealing any top prospects for any middle of the road veteran types out there.
As for the other names you mentioned…well, we all know that Adam Dunn is probably the last player in the entire league the Reds would look to acquire. Michael Young has a contract that is even worse than that of Rios and has been a below average to terrible defender at SS for his entire career, and he’s been even worse this year at 3B. Furthermore, the Rangers have a loaded farm and are smack dab in the middle of the playoff race, making it unlikely that they’d move him for prospects, though they might do it just to get rid of his contract. Teahen is an average player who really wouldn’t provide anything to the Reds other than decent versatility, and Peralta is a below average defender (although better than I thought, actually) with an OPS barely above .700 this year. I actually wouldn’t mind targeting him and I think the Indians would probably move him, but he’s not a difference-maker.
by Geki on Jul 2, 2009 1:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What do you make of the Escobar talk? Who would you give for him?
"Don't let the brain interfere with the heart" -- Albert Einstein
by jch24 on Jul 2, 2009 2:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
get off your atlanta fetish, bro
"We're going to Adonis, son"
jch24
by obc2 on Jul 2, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No
I can’t find it now, but do you remember the youtube video of him and a heckler getting into it after some benefit party? He showed his “class”
If peeing your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis.
by btcoop71 on Jul 2, 2009 8:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
but
if you follow the link (the text link lower in the article), you’ll find it. Several people have posted the same video at YouTube, and most are still active.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
by BubbaFan on Jul 2, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure...
but Yunel Escobar and Matt Kemp are the only players I’d trade for right now. They’re the only ones who could a) help tremendously on offense AND defense and b) help us this year AND next year without crushing our budget.
I’d make Bailey, Masset, Frazier, Stubbs, Maloney, and Thompson available for either of them, and would swap Alonso for Kemp.
Yes, I know I’m crazy.
Set the gearshift to the high gear of your soul.
by Kevin Mitchell is Batman on Jul 2, 2009 11:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
For the life of me, I can't figure out why the Dodgers would trade Kemp
but if they would, I’d trade Alonso plus a package for him. Looking at their bullpen, they might be interested in Rhodes since they appear to only have one reliable lefty out there right now and given that they are basically bound for the playoffs, I’m certain they want some help for this year. If I’m trading Alonso though, I’m not giving up Frazier. Everybody else is fair game, though obviously who they pick would change the size of the package.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on Jul 2, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't either...
but they obviously have a logjam (Karl Hungus!) in the outfield with Mannywood returning. I can’t see anyone picking up Pierre’s contract via trade, so they’ve got a sitchy-ation on their hands.
We’d have to give them a major league ready bat as well, I would think. Would Rhodes/Dickerson/Alonso get it done? Maybe, maybe not, but I don’t think the Dodgers are sold on the fact that Loney is their 1B of the future. That would solve the Reds’ RH bat problem, the T-Virus as a CF problem, and keep Votto locked in at 1st. I’d pull the trigger.
And obviously, we need a SS, and Escobar is the only one cheap enough, young enough, and good enough to warrant my interest. Orlando Cabrera my arse.
Set the gearshift to the high gear of your soul.
by Kevin Mitchell is Batman on Jul 2, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what I don't get about possibly trading Kemp
Their only real offensive hole would be the one left by trading Kemp, unless you consider Russell Martin and Rafael Furcal to be hopeless. Alonso replacing Loney eventually would likely be attractive to them though, I agree. Other than that, I really don’t see what their need would be. They’ve got a solid team all around.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on Jul 2, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we even able to trade alonso?
I’m not sure how that rule works where you have to wait a yr before you can trade the previous years draftees. Whether its a year after they signed or they have to play the whole next season before they’re eligible.
Hodl on gusy, I need to sue the batheroom....
by sharks on Jul 2, 2009 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a year after they sign
Actually, six months. Because you can trade them as a PTBNL…but PTBNLs must be named within six months.
All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?
by BubbaFan on Jul 2, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kemp this past offseason
That’s when the Reds should have made a run at Kemp. Phillips for Kemp and sign O.Hudson to play 2b. The Dodgers didn’t get whatever 2nd baseman they were looking for and got Hudson late in the offseason on a very cheap 1-yr deal.
by rojosoto on Jul 2, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think there's any chance the Dodgers will trade Kemp.
Why would they? He’s 24, under control for quite a while, and has all the makings of a very good player, if not a superstar. He’s a key cog on their contending major league club and a key part of their future, and I really don’t think there’s any chance that he’s dealt.
by Geki on Jul 2, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ownership and Torre are supposedly not fond of his attitude
But yeah, I don’t see it happening unless Jeff Kent becomes a player-manager.
by ken on Jul 2, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So were...
Paul Konerko, Mike Cameron, Jose Guillen, Felipe Lopez….
Set the gearshift to the high gear of your soul.
by Kevin Mitchell is Batman on Jul 2, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's no parallels.
Konerko was traded to get Cameron and get rid of a logjam at 1B. Cameron was traded for Griffey. Guillen was traded in a deadline deal for prospects when the Reds were clearly out of the race, not to mention he was a FA after the season. The Lopez trade was just terrible and shouldn’t be used as a barometer of anything other than Wayne Krivsky’s ineptitude.
by Geki on Jul 2, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you are looking at those trades backwards
look at when the Reds acquired those players. Then again, none of them were as established as Kemp, except maybe Cameron.
I still don’t believe the Dodgers would trade Kemp though.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on Jul 2, 2009 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of them are comparable to Kemp, I don't think.
Konerko was a top five prospect in baseball when we acquired him, but his major league experience to that point had been dismal. Furthermore, the Dodgers only gave him up because we had Jeff Shaw to give them, and I don’t think the Reds really have that type of major league piece that they can give up to get Kemp. Cameron was fairly highly thought of as well, but he was also terrible in the majors up to the point when we traded for him and we had to give up the #2 prospect in baseball to make that happen. Felipe was also fairly highly thought of and also had a crappy major league track record to that point, and we gave up Elmer Dessens to get him. Dessens was actually pretty outstanding in 2002 for us, but that was also the last year that he was a worthwhile major league starter. I don’t recall how highly thought of Dessens was at the time, but given the rest of the players in the deal (Lopez, Erubiel Durazo, and Jason Arnold), I’m going to guess “not very”.
Jose Guillen is a whole different story. We didn’t even trade for him, we signed him as a free agent, and his inclusion is why I was assuming he was referring to our trading players away, not acquiring them. Guillen was a cast-off from the Pirates, Rays, D’Backs, and Rockies who had over 2000 career plate appearances with an OPS barely above .700. The Reds signed him in August of 2002, after he had already been released by both Arizona and Colorado within the past month. He wasn’t highly thought of, he wasn’t traded for, and he doesn’t fit in that mix of players unless we’re talking about trading them away.
Anyways, all those players have one thing in common: Prior to becoming Reds, they were terrible major leaguers. Meanwhile, Matt Kemp is hitting .302 and is on pace for a 20 homer, 40 steal season while playing pretty great defense in CF. We aren’t even halfway through the season and he has a 3.6 WAR. He has been the 6th most valuable player in baseball thus far, behind Pujols, Ben Zobrist, Hanley Ramirez, Chase Utley, and Evan Longoria. Am I really supposed to believe that the team with the best record in baseball is looking to trade him so they can start Juan Pierre in CF every day?
by Geki on Jul 3, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
but I’ll say that baseball teams have consistently made decisions for stupider reasons. But like I said, I have no reason to believe the Dodgers will trade Kemp.
"It seems like we're not hitting because we're not getting hits." - Dusty being Dusty
by Slyde on Jul 3, 2009 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Geki, I couldn't agree more
And yes, I was directly referencing our beloved organization’s penchant for trading impact players who were highly regarded (whether they came up in our system or were acquired otherwise).
I think the Dodgers would be crazy to give Kemp up, hence the reason I want him so bad. If he wasn’t valued as highly as he was, they wouldn’t have to be as crazy to trade him. I simply said that he, and Escobar, are the only two players I’d trade anybody in our organization for. Nobody else out there on the block (or not, frankly) really intrigues me like they do given the gaps in our lineup.
P.S. Didn’t we get Harang from the A’s in the Guillen trade? I think that worked out just fine for the ol’ Redlegs…
Set the gearshift to the high gear of your soul.
by Kevin Mitchell is Batman on Jul 3, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you factor in the economy, including the player contracts and those few plarers that are realistically available at the Red's price..
It would a miracle for Walt to be able get the’bat’ that would make a diference.Here’s hoping that Edwin comes on like a freight train.And that Jay gets in the groove soon and that Dusty splits the time more equally between Ryan and Ramon…otherwise this season will be a rolly-coaster for us here at RR. Just when we’re ready to give up these guys climb 75% out of the grave…just enough to keep us hoping.
Unless Walt is willing to give up major prospects and take on a major contract nothing will change.
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.
George Carlin
by Madville on Jul 3, 2009 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Good post and I totally agree. I think everything comes down to economics.
Just like most people’s houses aren’t worth what they were 2 years ago……….and just like unemployment and paycuts…………the cost of taking on a players contract isn’t worth it right now either. Look at Adam Dunn in the offseason……..didn’t the Reds pay him like $13 million last year and he only got like $8 million this off season? I think the days of signing high priced players is going to slow, if not almost disappear. Clubs are going to look for cheaper options more and more, and value their minor leagues more and more. I think Matt Holiday is in for a rude awakening. It wouldn’t surprise me to see him sign a 2 year contract with someone, and hope the economic structure of players pay goes back up.
by Dude Rock on Jul 4, 2009 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 



















