|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 30, 2014 21:59:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Oct 31, 2014 8:04:56 GMT -5
Gordon would make sense in LF. Hosmer has no place to play in Cincinnati.
If the Royals were willing to deal Moose, I'd give him top priory, as you can flip Frazier to LF, and Moose would be cheapest to obtain and with the most years of control left.
That being said, I doubt any of them get traded coming off a WS run.
|
|
|
|
Post by cbassxu on Oct 31, 2014 9:13:56 GMT -5
Gordon would make sense in LF. Hosmer has no place to play in Cincinnati. If the Royals were willing to deal Moose, I'd give him top priory, as you can flip Frazier to LF, and Moose would be cheapest to obtain and with the most years of control left. That being said, I doubt any of them get traded coming off a WS run. Moose would be cheap, but he also really isn't very good... |
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 31, 2014 10:01:12 GMT -5
Gordon would make sense in LF. Hosmer has no place to play in Cincinnati. If the Royals were willing to deal Moose, I'd give him top priory, as you can flip Frazier to LF, and Moose would be cheapest to obtain and with the most years of control left. That being said, I doubt any of them get traded coming off a WS run. Hosmer is athletic enough to handle LF. |
|
|
|
Post by dukecrunchybagel on Oct 31, 2014 12:33:11 GMT -5
Gordon would make sense in LF. Hosmer has no place to play in Cincinnati. If the Royals were willing to deal Moose, I'd give him top priory, as you can flip Frazier to LF, and Moose would be cheapest to obtain and with the most years of control left. That being said, I doubt any of them get traded coming off a WS run. Moose would be cheap, but he also really isn't very good... Huge upside though. |
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Oct 31, 2014 14:20:09 GMT -5
Moose would be cheap, but he also really isn't very good... Huge upside though. Gotta admit, I'm not a huge Moose fan. I'm not sure I see much more upside to his game, but I know others believe in the former first rounder. |
|
|
|
Post by crashdavissports on Oct 31, 2014 16:20:45 GMT -5
If Gordon is turning down his 12.5 million dollar player option, you know the Reds are not going to be able to afford him.
We are in the process of having to deal players of our own and declining contracts with current players. Granted, there is no reason we should be reupping with Ludwick, but when you are in the process of dealing your own guys, and declining options, Gordon is not an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by schellis on Oct 31, 2014 19:30:46 GMT -5
If Gordon is turning down his 12.5 million dollar player option, you know the Reds are not going to be able to afford him. We are in the process of having to deal players of our own and declining contracts with current players. Granted, there is no reason we should be reupping with Ludwick, but when you are in the process of dealing your own guys, and declining options, Gordon is not an option. If Ludwick had even a .260 15 homer 70 rbi year I think the Reds would have picked it up. They didn't because Ludwick stunk, not because they were hard up. I'm not saying that isn't part of the reason, but Ludwick and Hannahan's options weren't picked up solely because of performance. |
|
|
|
Post by crashdavissports on Oct 31, 2014 21:49:33 GMT -5
If Gordon is turning down his 12.5 million dollar player option, you know the Reds are not going to be able to afford him. We are in the process of having to deal players of our own and declining contracts with current players. Granted, there is no reason we should be reupping with Ludwick, but when you are in the process of dealing your own guys, and declining options, Gordon is not an option. If Ludwick had even a .260 15 homer 70 rbi year I think the Reds would have picked it up. They didn't because Ludwick stunk, not because they were hard up. I'm not saying that isn't part of the reason, but Ludwick and Hannahan's options weren't picked up solely because of performance. Oh trust me, I know. I am just saying, with the increase in player salaries, the fact alot of our players are about to get kind of expensive, especially our pitching, looking to trade players, etc. We are not expanding our budget for Gordon for the size contract he will want, or for only one year where we are having to look at cutting expenses now to even make it. I mean, the end of this year, attendance had to plummet a little, hell my attention span dropped almost altogether. I think I watched maybe 3 games from August 1st through the end of the season. We were not playing well, guys were hurt, we were falling farther and farther out of the race. Hell the Cubs almost caught us because of the way we were playing. That is not good news for ticket sales to start the season next year. I just see us continue to trim fat as much as possible, while trading some decent pieces away to gain a new handle on the budget and not overspend on as many over the hill breaking down players as possible. We are stuck with Votto, Phillips and Bruce..I have to think we are going to keep that from happening further. I used to hate this idea..but I am liking it more and more, with what the Rays have been doing. You get the most out of a player through his 5th controlled year, and then trade him if he has become a star about to make a ton of money, and retool with guys very close to the majors who can be a major impact. You get Cueto and Latos to this point, you trade for maximum value, giving you a guy you have complete cost control over for 5 to 6 years, trade them away at the end and keep the pipeline fresh, young, talented and cheap. Keep a face like Votto around for branding as long as he can hold his value somewhat well. I am not saying Votto is not overvalued right now with his injuries and production, but you can afford to keep a cornerstone player at a very high rate if you are keeping your talent turning over on a regular basis that is talented and affordable. Keeps you relevant longer, and gives you more financial flexibility in a pennant race. |
|
