If Vincente Padilla is worth that contract, then surely Kyle Lohse is worth millions worth of prospects on the open market via trade. After all, the receiving team would be assuming far far fewer dollars over both the short and the long term.

That's the duplicity I don't understand from your posts- either Lohse is an extreme value for what he's being paid and, therefore, should garner a very valuable package in return via trade or he won't. Which is it? If he's the former, then goodie. If he's the latter, then he's not worth what he projects to be paid in the market we're discussing.

I very much appreciate your well thought out responses, but that's a key point on which I keep getting hung up.

Then, to you, starting pitchers must be the market inefficiency, because that's what they're going for.  If you want to make an arguement around that (using, say 3 relievers instead of a 5th starter), go ahead, but that'd take alot more creativity, and guts, than anyone in baseball has ever shown, and I doubt it'd work.

Oh, absolutely. Mediocre Starting Pitchers are the
life blood of market inefficiency. One of the reasons for that is that the vast majority of teams would rather pay big bucks for "proven" (that term used loosely) mediocrity than they would allow unproven reaonable replacements to take the mound. It's why the Reds are paying Eric Milton. It's why Jose Lima hung on for as long as he did. And it's why Ramon Ortiz had a job last year.

And no, nowhere have I stated that a team should do something as severe as utilize three relievers in that capacity. What I have intimated is that the list of probable 5.00 DIPS rate starting pitchers is a lot longer than most folks think.

Without looking it up (I know nothing about MORP; there seems to be alot of debate about how BP values "replacement level", though; and I don't have access to BPro's stats), I'm guessing starting pitchers are overvalued when talking about runs/dollar in general.  It would seem to make sense, because there is always such a percieved lack of starters (the talk already is that next year they'll be in short supply again).

Oh, I agree that there's a "perceived" lack of starters who can produce a 5.00 DIPS rate, but there's not an actual lack of starters who can produce said numbers- and for far less than 5.0M bucks.

And I'd suggest grabbing the BP premium package. Pretty eye-opening.

If that's so, your comment what the Reds can afford to spend for a probable net result of +11 Runs versus Replacement. At that level, there's a much larger pool of players than many teams realize doesn't work if you're talking about a pool of all players, not just pitchers.

Nah. I'm talking about pitchers. At the 5.00 DIPS rate point, the pool is basically a commodity swap. Desperate teams end up paying more for that commodity; which drives up the price for everyone. What I'm suggesting is that the Reds capitalize on that market flux.

The thing is, we sometimes get so caught up in things like "value" that we forget we have to field a team of players, and actually play a game.  And that is why some "traditionalists" have such a problem with "stat heads".

That's unfortunate. I've been talking about resource management and how it helps field a real time to play real games the entire time. Removing Lohse doesn't reprsent some kind of "void" in the Reds pitching staff that can't be filled by proper resource management.

To be clear- I'm not talking about moving Lohse just to get out from under his probable contract. I'm talking about moving Lohse for value; which should be real if your market valuation of Lohse is correct. If the Reds can't garner talent for Lohse, then either Krivsky isn't trying hard enough in this market or no one actually buys the idea that Lohse is a good value.

In short, my interpretation of our conversation is that you feel Lohse is undervalued; meaning that a savvy GM should be able to swap him for a quality return. I feel that Lohse is overpaid for his projected Run value but that the market is ripe to absorb overpaid middling performance- and, most likely, at a windfall to the seller.

I don't, at all, see how Lohse's projected marginal Run value versus replacement will make him a benefit to the Reds in 2007 (much less a $5M benefit) considering their dire Run Differential position. Knowing that, it behooves Krivsky to find a market for Lohse in order to somehow recoup the Run value loss he's garnered from his post-ASB dealings.

IMHO, I see a solid opportunity to use a very replaceable piece who may be perceived as being more valuable than he is as a means to demonstrably affecting the Reds Run Differential. I'm not saying that Lohse doesn't have value to someone...somewhere. I'm just saying that I see his projected 2007 value to the Reds as being less than if the Reds were able to turn him into something more. That's how Aaron Harang got to Cinci, of course. Yes, Castellini wants to win but if the result of that desire it to dearly hold onto Kyle Lohse at $5M on the precipice of a projected 72-Win season with Lohse, then I'm afraid we may not see a winner again until the next decade.

The base disagreement here is to the best use for Lohse as an asset. You say keep. I say sell. I feel the latter option is more advantageous for the Reds. We can certainly agree to disagree on that point. No problem and I'll thank you for an intelligent discussion (lord knows the offseason needs that quite often) and apologize to readers for the length of my post.

And you should know that the reason "traditionalists" have a problem with "stat-heads" is that we don't watch games and only enjoy baseball from a Microsoft Excel workbook. Geez! ;)