I keep seeing you throw out this narrative, but I don't get it, who on here is going out of their way to deify him? I've had him on blast since he got here, many others have been hyper-critical of him as well, so I guess I must have missed the hundreds of posts from the sheep that have been loving him up and down.

 

Clyde has been a fan of his, but he has been fair and balanced looking at the good and the bad, and beyond that, I can't recall anyone that has been a Bailey jersey-wearer.

 

He's pretty much talking about me. I've said numerous times (correctly I might add) that the Reds did not overpay for Homer. If he's healthy, he's worth what they gave him. The proof in that is that he would've gotten more money had he hit free agency, but he continues to harp on it.

 

If people want to complain that they gave him the money and should've used it instead on Leake, that's cool. Won't disagree that that would've been a smart decision. Just don't say they overpaid for him. A player's value is what they can get on the market. The Reds got Homer for less than he would've gotten on the market.

In keeping with my apparent role as the antagonist in this thread, someone riddle me these:

 

When the Reds traded for Latos, did they give up a proven major league pitcher? The Padres got a major league guy in return, right? Guy might still be pitching for a pretty good team?

 

When the Reds traded Travis Wood, they got Marshall (another MLB for MLB trade, go figure).

 

Seems these things can happen without the 83 exceptions involved in the, "yeah but," Red Sox trade of last year.

 

Were either one of those trade deadline deals for a player that was going to be a free agent at the end of the year?

Leake has been scratched from his next start for the Giants due to a hamstring strain. May miss another start as well.

In keeping with my apparent role as the antagonist in this thread, someone riddle me these:

 

When the Reds traded for Latos, did they give up a proven major league pitcher? The Padres got a major league guy in return, right? Guy might still be pitching for a pretty good team?

 

When the Reds traded Travis Wood, they got Marshall (another MLB for MLB trade, go figure).

 

Seems these things can happen without the 83 exceptions involved in the, "yeah but," Red Sox trade of last year.

 

Setting aside the offseason/deadline glaring difference, Volquez wasn't exactly the centerpiece of the Latos deal. Frankly I forgot he was even a part of it.

 

I get it, the Reds maybe should have made some more deals in the offseason, but in hindsight, I don't see how they would have been any better this year with whatever they received in return if it meant losing their top 2 pitchers (or 3 if Chapman was included). Especially after they did deal Latos and Simon. If the other guys would have gone, Baily and his impending Tommy-John would have been the only returning starter. A trio of rooks would get to learn by watching Homer and Jason Marquis.

 

Here's an exercise. Look at the Reds' roster. Essentially every player is old (ex: Byrd), useless (ex: Skip), too expensive (ex: Votto/BP), filled with question marks (Billy) or so-called untouchable (ex: Frazier). If the Reds wanted to trade for a well-regarded big-leaguer there aren't many players left to give up. I'm sure every other team has a similarly small group of players on the trading block as well. And that group is even smaller or non-existent when you consider a team wanting to trade a week ago wasn't going to give up anybody helping them now since they want to be good for the next two months.

 

At the end of the day, by trading Cueto and Leake at the deadline, the Reds probably got a better return than they would have in the offseason. It seems to me that Leake has had the best season of his career, and Cueto stayed healthy and put up great numbers.

Great read. Out of all of the ones in ghe Reds made out well on these trades camp , can we see a show of hands from,those that believe they are contending within 3 seasons?

By 2018, yes I think they can be realistically contending for the playoffs again. Their stated goal is the 2017 season. I don't think that's out of the question either.

By 2017 or 2018 they should have a rotation made up of some combination of:

 

Iglesias

Lorenzen

Moscot

Stephenson

Travieso

Garrett

Finnegan

Reed

Lamb

Mella

Rainey

Romano

Crawford

Howard

Antone

Santillan

Sampson

 

Now some of those guys won't pan out, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that 60% of them do. That's 10 guys for 5 spots.

 

Bat-wise you should have (we'll assume Hamilton makes some strides) Hamilton, Suarez, Winker, Stephenson, Wallach, Blandino, Trahan, Rodriguez, Ervin, and Duran potentially. Now are any of those guys superstars? I have no idea, but I think all of them will be 25 man roster guys either in Cincinnati or elsewhere, and a chunk will be everyday players.

 

They can use some of the savings from Chapman, Bruce, etc. to address the bat issue as well as bring in guys in trades for either of them. They'll also have the ability to trade from their pitching depth to acquire bats if needed too.

 

It's not a sure thing at all, but I can see realistic expectations of contention by 2018, maybe even 2017.

Bailey and Disco will also be in the mix for SP I assume. Holmberg and Astin could also be a candidate along with Jackson Stephens and Seth Varner. Although with more elite arms ahead of them these guys are probably destined for the pen. Which brings up another point, the pen should be vastly improved made up of guys that the Reds decide are better off being relief pitchers out of the collection of arms already mentioned. Then you also have guys that are already bullpen arms such as Zack Weiss who has been dominant this year and some other nice arms from the most recent draft such as Herget out of USF who is expected to advance quickly.

 

It's also important to note that the Reds have nice draft position this year with an early first and the first comp pick. These guys will hopefully be bats that can be thrown into the equation by 2017 and 2018. I think the Reds are competing for a wildcard spot in 2017 led by a young and very good pitching staff.

The rotation won't be ready at all next year, 2017 is the earliest they can start a window. There are also worse middle of the order in a lineup than Votto, Meso, Bruce, Frazier. If they can add to that, they can be in good shape then.

Both of those trades you mentioned happened in the off-season. Totally different animal than a team trying to get something for a guy that's going to be a free agent in a couple of months. That's why everyone here is saying the Reds should've traded Cueto either last year, or much, much earlier this year. It's also why guys like Chapman and Bruce would bring a whole lot more...because they'd be under the "new" team's control from a whole lot longer than Cueto or Leake.

 

Rings like a "yeah but," issue to me with a lot of responses.

 

Point is simple, you can trade established MLB talent for MLB talent. Others said it couldn't be done, I pointed out it has in a few cases I remember off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others. Each one, seems to have a "yeah but," exception to it.

 

I'm also in the camp that the Reds should have moved Cueto earlier and have pointed that out.

 

We can disagree, if you guys want to get excited about 2018, 17, 19, whenever go ahead. Me, I see way too many holes and question marks at this point.

I don't know what your point is?

 

If you can't see that they got a very good return for both Leake and Cueto and they were the right moves to make there's no use discussing baseball with you.

 

My man must have slept in a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Short answer to your last graph is, then don't. Trust me, you aren't bringing a boat load of knowledge to the conversation. I'll live.

 

Longer answer is, I think the Reds could have gotten better returns for both guys. "Prospects" for a potential Cy Young winner don't send me into backflip mode.

 

Not been a fan of the Reds front office since they made Dusty a scapegoat. Since then, they've basically done nothing to bolster the team, and this is the result. Bats are few and far between, no depth, etc.

 

But I get it. You invented the game and the rest of us just don't understand. I gotcha.

My man must have slept in a Holiday Inn last night.

 

Short answer to your last graph is, then don't. Trust me, you aren't bringing a boat load of knowledge to the conversation. I'll live.

 

Longer answer is, I think the Reds could have gotten better returns for both guys. "Prospects" for a potential Cy Young winner don't send me into backflip mode.

 

Not been a fan of the Reds front office since they made Dusty a scapegoat. Since then, they've basically done nothing to bolster the team, and this is the result. Bats are few and far between, no depth, etc.

 

But I get it. You invented the game and the rest of us just don't understand. I gotcha.

 

Nailed it!

Dusty sucks.

 

Oh and for the record, bandit was the resident Homer homer.