Trading Johnny Cueto!

[futurecoach]

I get why they would have to try to trade Cueto. However I hate all the future talk in baseball, because in football you can try to build for the future while also trying to win now. In baseball if you try to build for the future you will suck and no guarantee it will work out. Shoot from the late 90's all the way up until the Reds finally made the playoffs again we kept hearing about building for the future. Well those future players brought us the likes of Brandon Lawsons and other talented guys who couldn't cut it in the big leagues. That's why I never got why for the last few years people have been trying to say build for the future. IMO it should have been people angry saying why aren't we going all in trying to win right now, screw trying for the future and hoping the young talent pans out. However now the Reds basically are stuck having to try to build for the future, since they didn't go for it when they had the chance. So who knows when the Reds will even be in contention again.

[AverageJoesGym]

If the Reds front office were smart they would be trying to trade Cueto, Chapman and Leake now instead of closer to the trading deadline. There have been several injuries to pitchers that contenders were counting on: McCarthy, Wainwright, Tanaka, Ryu and Iwakuma just to name a few. Add to that the Blue Jays and Red Sox who have enough offense to win the division but significant worries with their pitching you truly have a seller's market. If they make the moves now these teams will get the pitchers for almost the whole season and the return would likely be more than if they become a 2 month rental. Also, if they wait until closer to the deadline there will be a lot more rental arms out there and one of the contenders might be more likely to go with a Harang or Garza instead of paying for Cueto or Hamels. Right now all of the teams needing pitching are still in it. I'm sure that it wouldn't be popular with the fans and it won't happen but now is when they should be shopping those 3.

[malachicrunch]

I get why they would have to try to trade Cueto. However I hate all the future talk in baseball, because in football you can try to build for the future while also trying to win now. In baseball if you try to build for the future you will suck and no guarantee it will work out. Shoot from the late 90's all the way up until the Reds finally made the playoffs again we kept hearing about building for the future. Well those future players brought us the likes of Brandon Lawsons and other talented guys who couldn't cut it in the big leagues. That's why I never got why for the last few years people have been trying to say build for the future. IMO it should have been people angry saying why aren't we going all in trying to win right now, screw trying for the future and hoping the young talent pans out. However now the Reds basically are stuck having to try to build for the future, since they didn't go for it when they had the chance. So who knows when the Reds will even be in contention again.

 

I think they did go for it. A couple of years ago, they came out of San Fran up 2-0 in the playoffs with a great chance to win a pennant. it just didn't happen. That window has slammed shut. Either they get it together by rebuilding or they suffer some poor seasons.

[ESPNdeux]

I get why they would have to try to trade Cueto. However I hate all the future talk in baseball, because in football you can try to build for the future while also trying to win now. In baseball if you try to build for the future you will suck and no guarantee it will work out. Shoot from the late 90's all the way up until the Reds finally made the playoffs again we kept hearing about building for the future. Well those future players brought us the likes of Brandon Lawsons and other talented guys who couldn't cut it in the big leagues. That's why I never got why for the last few years people have been trying to say build for the future. IMO it should have been people angry saying why aren't we going all in trying to win right now, screw trying for the future and hoping the young talent pans out. However now the Reds basically are stuck having to try to build for the future, since they didn't go for it when they had the chance. So who knows when the Reds will even be in contention again.

 

They did exactly what you say in 2012... They said screw the future and went for it. For all intents and purposes, they had the best team in the NL that year, and abruptly lost their minds after getting a 2-0 lead ON THE ROAD, to refresh your memory. If we hadn't 'went for it,' we'd probably be looking at a very different team right now...

 

The past 3-4 years, we've also signed at least one awful contract (Homer), one contract that's looking shaky (Bruce), and one that was probably market value but not something the Reds could afford (BP) and one that was expensive, but great, but you better not sign 3 bad others behind it (Votto)...

[ESPNdeux]

IF they do sign Johnny, if they sign him for anything more than about 3-4 years, it's a bad deal. Also, he would need to give them a heavy discount.

 

If they sign him at market value, it will be a mistake for the team. We will watch for the next 3 years as we hope Johnny can throw CG shut outs so the Kevin Greggs of the world try to hold a lead (because there is no bullpen money to spend if we sign JC), then the next 3-4 years after that, we hope and pray he doesn't get hurt or we're literally going to have to run out a minor league team. Also, if we sign Johnny, you can forget signing anyone upcoming... Leake, Fraz, Bruce, Chap, etc..

[HammerTime]

IF they do sign Johnny, if they sign him for anything more than about 3-4 years, it's a bad deal. Also, he would need to give them a heavy discount.

 

None of that is happening.

[Capernicus41]

None of that is happening.

 

Heavy discounts in baseball just don't happen. Unless Cueto gets TJ this year he is getting at least Lester money.

[John Anthony]

IF they do sign Johnny' date=' if they sign him for anything more than about 3-4 years, it's a bad deal. Also, he would need to give them a heavy discount. If they sign him at market value, it will be a mistake for the team. We will watch for the next 3 years as we hope Johnny can throw CG shut outs so the Kevin Greggs of the world try to hold a lead (because there is no bullpen money to spend if we sign JC), then the next 3-4 years after that, we hope and pray he doesn't get hurt or we're literally going to have to run out a minor league team. Also, if we sign Johnny, you can forget signing anyone upcoming... Leake, Fraz, Bruce, Chap, etc..[/quote']

 

The players and agents won't allow this. The Nationals will have to pay Scherzer for several years AFTER he's retired...

[futurecoach]

I think they did go for it. A couple of years ago, they came out of San Fran up 2-0 in the playoffs with a great chance to win a pennant. it just didn't happen. That window has slammed shut. Either they get it together by rebuilding or they suffer some poor seasons.

 

They did exactly what you say in 2012... They said screw the future and went for it. For all intents and purposes, they had the best team in the NL that year, and abruptly lost their minds after getting a 2-0 lead ON THE ROAD, to refresh your memory. If we hadn't 'went for it,' we'd probably be looking at a very different team right now...

 

The past 3-4 years, we've also signed at least one awful contract (Homer), one contract that's looking shaky (Bruce), and one that was probably market value but not something the Reds could afford (BP) and one that was expensive, but great, but you better not sign 3 bad others behind it (Votto)...

 

What exactly did they give up by going for it that did cost them their future? Obviously they had the Latos trade, which I don't think any of the players they gave up for him are doing much are they? But besides that, they didn't really get rid of guys to go for it, or am I forgetting some trades? Which I admit I may be forgetting somethings.

 

Now what they did do was be not very smart with some contracts like with Homer.

[ESPNdeux]

What exactly did they give up by going for it that did cost them their future? Obviously they had the Latos trade, which I don't think any of the players they gave up for him are doing much are they? But besides that, they didn't really get rid of guys to go for it, or am I forgetting some trades? Which I admit I may be forgetting somethings.

 

Now what they did do was be not very smart with some contracts like with Homer.

 

Alonso, Grandal, Boxberger, Wood...

 

Alonso was never going to play here with Joey. They were always going to trade one of them for something.

[futurecoach]

Alonso, Grandal, Boxberger, Wood...

 

Alonso was never going to play here with Joey. They were always going to trade one of them for something.

 

Would any of them really have helped the Reds in the future? Not like any of those guys are doing much besides Boxberger.

 

Travis Wood has lost more games than he has won every year in the Big Leagues except one year and that was his first year when he went 5 and 4.

 

Yonder Alonso has only been able to make it through one season where he played the majority of the games, every other season he has played less than half. With numbers that basically don't show that he would help out to much, especially since he is apparently hurt a lot. He is off to a good start this year though.

 

Yasmani Grandal has a very unimpressive batting average of .215 over the last three years.

 

Brad Boxberger has done well though and would have been nice to have on the team. So basically one player is the only talented player we gave up who has done much so far. Which if you think about it since we got Latos in the trade for Boxberger, it then led to the starting pitcher we have now.

 

The Reds future doesn't appear to have been so bright even if they had kept those guys. So they didn't really lose much or hurt their future IMO, the contract of Homer is what hurts more.

[ESPNdeux]

I agree Homer's contract is the biggest boneheaded move.

[AverageJoesGym]

What exactly did they give up by going for it that did cost them their future? Obviously they had the Latos trade, which I don't think any of the players they gave up for him are doing much are they? But besides that, they didn't really get rid of guys to go for it, or am I forgetting some trades? Which I admit I may be forgetting somethings.

 

Now what they did do was be not very smart with some contracts like with Homer.

 

It doesn't matter how those prospects turned out. The fact that they traded away the majority of their highest rated prospects for Latos, Broxton and Marshall and signed Ludwick is the very definition of going for it.

[EZ Living]

Would any of them really have helped the Reds in the future? Not like any of those guys are doing much besides Boxberger.

 

Travis Wood has lost more games than he has won every year in the Big Leagues except one year and that was his first year when he went 5 and 4.

 

Yonder Alonso has only been able to make it through one season where he played the majority of the games, every other season he has played less than half. With numbers that basically don't show that he would help out to much, especially since he is apparently hurt a lot. He is off to a good start this year though.

 

Yasmani Grandal has a very unimpressive batting average of .215 over the last three years.

 

Brad Boxberger has done well though and would have been nice to have on the team. So basically one player is the only talented player we gave up who has done much so far. Which if you think about it since we got Latos in the trade for Boxberger, it then led to the starting pitcher we have now.

 

The Reds future doesn't appear to have been so bright even if they had kept those guys. So they didn't really lose much or hurt their future IMO, the contract of Homer is what hurts more.

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Getting rid of these same high prospects in the farm system in one trade negated the possibility of trading them as single pieces and acquiring multiple players in return. They traded Volquez and not Wood for Latos along with Boxberger, Alonso and Grandal. That was 4 former 1st round draft picks. At the time of the trade I thought it was steep especially adding Boxberger in the deal. Alonso and Grandal were stuck behind players but Grandal was an anomaly in that he was a switch hitting catcher who showed some good minor league numbers with the Reds. The Reds decided to go all in on Latos and the deal looked good for a couple of years when the Reds competed. Bottom line is that if you are willing to give up your 1st round high prospects you better benefit from it and they didn't. Now the farm system needs to be rebuilt.

[LOOGY]

If Cueto doesn't get hurt in 2012 they win the whole thing. No way would have SF gotten past game 4 with Cueto on the mound instead of Leake...

 

Trading Cueto could be more important than resigning him. They could really get a few nice pieces for the future, and start another run.