2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

[redsrule]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

Stanton. I want Stanton.

I think we should get Mike Trout too, but that isn't going to happen. I thought they should have pushed for Stanton 2 years ago. After what he did this year, they'd have to give up the farm and then some to get Stanton. He'd hit 40-50 home runs at the Great American Smallpark imo though.

[CaseIH]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

I would love for the starting pitching rotation to stay in place but there is absolutely NO WAY the Reds can afford to keep them all after next year. And if that is the case, which it is, then the front office would be bigger morons than I thought not trading someone in the off season to get a good return. A team will be willing to give up a better player if the pitcher they are getting is good and not just a 3 month rental.

As for Cozart and everyone's hatred of the chap, I disagree about trading him or replacing him UNLESS there is an absolute clear case of someone being all around better. He is one of the best defensive shortstops in the game and that is a very important position to be good at defensively. I agree he can't hit, but as someone else pointed out earlier, if he can get back to .250-.260 with his defense, there isn't going to be much better out there. And if there was, I doubt we could afford them. And even if he is a career .220 hitter, if he is playing gold glove defense and is the only one that hits that low out of the everyday players, then I think you can deal with it. The problem gets to be when there is him, Dudwick, Bruce and half the team batting that horribly that it becomes an issue.

I can only hope that Bruce and Votto are 100% healthy next season and return to being productive members of the team. With the emergence of Mez and Frazier this team would have enough offense to contend if Bruce/Votto are performing. I think Hamilton has a lot to learn but the one thing he has shown in his short career (minors) is that he learns. Every year he has played it usually was the first year that wasn't great and year 2 would see a significant upgrade in hitting. He is already one of the best defensive center fielders in the game so hopefully he can improve offensively. Learn to take a considerable amount more walks, less strikeouts, more hits and definitely understanding pitchers/catchers/situations for steal attempts. I think his future is bright though.

Bullpen needs some serious help but that shouldn't cost an arm and a leg to fix. Hoover was horrible this year but he has been great the couple/few years prior. I think you give him a chance to get rested up over the winter and see what he can do at the beginning of next year. I wouldn't get rid of him yet mainly because he was very good before this year. He is still very young and can rebound I believe.

Trading Latos should definitely get a nice return but Cueto would be better. Hopefully they test the market to see if/what they can get for either. I don't know if we can afford Cueto after next year though. I like Cueto the best and he is obviously our best pitcher, but if you can get a BIG bat for left field for him, it might just make sense to do so. But if the difference in return is marginal between him and Latos, I would say trade Latos. Still young but also too emotional and again, Cueto is better. While Cueto has had some injuries, it was mainly 2011 and 2013 that he had to deal with them and miss any significant time. All other years in the league he has made no less than 30 starts every year including 34 this year.

BP is still valuable and my guess is, if he can stay healthy next year, he will do whatever he has to do to prove the detractors wrong. With that said, if somehow the Reds find themselves in a position to trade him and he is willing, they have to do it.

Other than Mez, Frazier and Hamilton, I listen to any and all offers on the table. Every single other player on the 25 man roster can be traded as far as I'm concerned including Chappy. I like Chappy but if he can bring in a good return on a player, and it makes sense, I think you take it. I have doubts they will do this mainly because Chappy puts butts in the seats and that can't be taken for granted.

All in all, I have absolutely no faith in the front office right now. I understand at this past deadline not to trade someone to upgrade the team this year because the season was clearly lost. But if they trade a starting pitcher this winter, then I will find them DUMB not to have done it during the trade deadline this year because then teams would have had 18 months with the pitcher and therefore a return would higher. They should have taken advantage of that IMO. I think upgrading the bullpen shouldn't be too hard. Most of those guys have a shelf life of about 3-5 years and pitchers come and go all the time. Just need to be smart about it. Let's see if they can be. I wouldn't be hurt if they traded Bruce just not sure they will get anything for him coming off this horrible year. Therefore I am, as a fan of course, willing to give him another half a year to see if he can start trending back to his .260/30+/90+ type of line. Votto I have serious doubts he will ever be the guy he was before the injury but I certainly hope so. Even if he only hits 20 hr's a year, but still bats around .310+ and knocks in 85+ rbi's then I think he will be good enough. Still overpaid but better than what we have been getting from him.

Finally Mez and Frazier need to continue on their path of improving. If so, they can be menacing to a lot of teams in the middle of the order. We'll see how this team pans out over the winter. If they go into next season without making any major deals, I am not sure I will pay attention anymore. It is just too draining for me.

Yes if Cozart could hit around .250 then no one would have a issue with that considering his defense is GG caliber. I do think Negron should go into spring training with a chance to win the starting job at ss, and let Cozart know he better get it together. I think Zach is better than what he showed this yr offensively, and just had a rough season like most of our players did.

I think they should shop a starter for some offense, wasnt saying they shouldnt, I just could see them staying pat thinking if everyone is healthy they have enough. I dont agree with that, as our offense has been poor for quite a few years now. By trading either Latos or Cueto you could get quite a bit back, especially if they would be willing to sign a extension with that team they would be going to. Leake wouldnt bring nearly as much back as either Cueto or Latos, so I think its got to be either Cueto or Latos that get moved. My guess is if 1 of them gets moved it will be Latos, cause they like to keep the home grown talent.

Bullpen shouldnt be too hard to fix, and I agree Hoover while he did have a bad yr has shown he can be very good, for whatever reason he just really had a horrible yr this yr unfortunately. Id actually keep Hoover before I would keep the Big Dufus Ondrusek, I cant stand Ondrusek, I hate him almost as much as I hated Eric Milton,lol.

[CaseIH]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

The Reds are going to have 4 starters next year (assuming Simon stays in the rotation) eligible for free agency after year is up with Latos, Cueto, Leake and Simon. Latos and Cueto are going to get huge deals. Leake is probably going to get an Arroyo type deal. The Reds CAN NOT afford to let them all walk. Latos' trade value is really low right now due to all the injuries he has had this year. Cueto is coming off of his best year and we would probably get the most for him.

Trade Cueto for a starting LF and a good prospect or two, try and resign Latos and Leake to below market deals.

Phillips is a good defensive second baseman. However his speed and power are all but gone and he's still owed almost $40 million from the Reds.

I agree with Phantom that other than Mesoraco, Frazier and Hamilton I would entertain offers for every single guy on the roster. If they can get a good return for Chapman I would do it in a heartbeat as well. He's a fun guy to watch, but other than his strikeouts he's not the shutdown closer people expect.

Yeah at this point no one should be considered untradeable, except for Mez,Billy and Frazier. There isnt any team that will take Votto's contract, so he isnt going anywhere, now if he were healthy then there might be a team or 2 that would consider taking that contract on, but if he were healthy then we wouldnt want to trade him anyway,lol. BP at his age with his contract, we wont be able to move him, but I think if BP gets healthy then he can still be effective, but his offense is declining which is normal for his age.

We get the bullpen fixed, and I think if we just add 1 bat in LF we have the potential to be a very good offense if Votto is healthy and produces like he is capable of, and there is no reason to think that Votto wont produce if healthy.

Be nice if we could fix thing while keeping the rotation intact, cause even if you were to lose 1 or more of the starters in FA you still get a compensation pick. Although trading either Cueto or Latos could land a bat and possibly a couple descent prospects. Latos value has probably slipped with being injured to end the season, and Cueto would be the guy who would fetch the most of any of the guys, but I dont see them even considering Cueto in a deal.

Ownership has surprised me before by opening up their wallets, so who knows what they might do. Heck I never thought they would pay Votto what they did, and then on top of that pay to keep BP. Mr C seems to have deep pockets, but with Votto looking like damage goods, the might be a little gun shy on spending much more. Although I do look for Votto to get right, and come back strong next season.

[PhantomPain]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

Crazy that Adam Dunn had never made the playoffs until last night and never got into the game and now he is retiring. So long you big Donkey. Could have used his power, not strike outs, recently.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

http://redlegnation.com/2014/09/29/the-almighty-dollar/

The Reds 2014 season plainly disappointed. And passing judgment on the wisdom of the moves that produced their roster and record is part of a successful process of moving forward. Those who ignore the lessons of Jack Hannahan are doomed to repeat them.

But to avoid the polarizing blame game, these posts will stay forward-looking and resist obvious temptations. We’ll identify the right goals for the Reds, put them squarely in front and move toward them. If you think Walt Jocketty or Bryan Price should be fired, those are legitimate topics, just not for this series of posts. The decisions about the roster are controversial enough without adding recrimination toward specific people into the mix. For these posts, let’s bracket that off.

So what topics will be addressed? Getting the Offseason Right will tackle big-picture strategies, including the wisdom of blowing up the team; the importance of valuing hitters over pitchers and what type of hitters the Reds need; the free agent and trade market for left fielders; the terrible twos; the pros and cons of trading a starting pitcher, and if so, which one; how to unleash the Cuban Missile; and a plan for building a better (and cheaper) bullpen.

—

But of course we start with money. Always with the money.

A competitive major league baseball team costs plenty — several arms and quite a few legs. The happy news is that the Cincinnati Reds can afford many of these parts.

Several income streams contribute to the Reds’ revenue and almost all of them are flowing rapidly in a positive direction. The major ones: National and local broadcast revenues, including renegotiation of the Reds regional television deal in 2015 or 2016; live MLB digital platforms; stadium revenues; league revenue sharing and merchandise sales.

Those are complex issues, any of which could be developed in a 1000-word post of its own. But what Reds fans really want to know is pretty simple.

How much will the organization spend on payroll in 2015? What are their current commitments? And can the Reds afford a winning roster?

For years, the Reds were long and rightfully faulted to being overly frugal. However, under the ownership of Bob Castellini, the team has begun to act aggressively in response to greater income and stronger revenue projections. Castellini has put his degrees from Georgetown and the Wharton School to good use. Under his tenure as CEO, the Reds have dramatically increased their spending on major league payroll, both in absolute terms and relative to other clubs.

When Castellini took control of the Reds in 2006, the team’s payroll languished in the bottom third of major league franchises. The rival Cardinals were outspending the Reds by 50 percent. But by 2014, the Reds had the 11th highest payroll and were the biggest spenders in the NL Central. Just since 2012, the Reds have increased their payroll from $87 million to $114 million.

Those recent jumps are likely part of a longer-term plan. If the rosy financial outlook for MLB continues and the Castellini-led ownership follows through with its promise to invest new revenues into player salaries, expect the Reds payroll to increase to $130 million in 2015 and continue upward. The Reds annual payroll could exceed $160 million by 2017. The money is there. So is the urgency to win.

That leads to the second question: How does $130 million match up to the team’s current payroll commitments for 2015?

Guaranteed-contract and pre-arbitration player salaries are pretty easy to calculate. The arbitration-based salaries need to be negotiated but can be estimated looking at recent arbitration awards. Here’s an educated guess:

Guaranteed Contracts: Joey Votto ($14m), Brandon Phillips ($12m), Jay Bruce ($12m), Johnny Cueto ($10m), Homer Bailey ($10m), Sean Marshall ($6.5m), Manny Parra ($3.5m), Ryan Ludwick ($4.5m buyout), Skip Schumaker ($2.5m), Jack Hannahan ($2m buyout), Sam LeCure ($1.85m), Brayan Peña ($1.4m), Aroldis Chapman ($8m est.) all have guaranteed contracts for 2015. [Total: $88.25m]

Arbitration Awards: Players entering their third year of arbitration are Mat Latos ($11m est), Mike Leake ($9m est), Chris Heisey ($2.5m est) and Alfredo Simon ($3m est). Chapman is the lone second-year arbitration candidate. First-time arbitration qualifiers are Zack Cozart ($2m est), Todd Frazier ($4m est), and Devin Mesoraco ($3.5m est). [Total: $35m]

Pre-arbitration: Players who remain in their first three years of service time, and who therefore have no arbitration rights and can expect to work at or near the league minimum (roughly $550,000) are J.J. Hoover, Tony Cingrani, Billy Hamilton, Jumbo Diaz and Kristopher Negron. [Total: $2.75m]

Others could take the place of players in the pre-arb category: David Holmberg, Dylan Axelrod, Carlos Contreras, Daniel Corcino, Rasiel Iglesias are examples. But if any of them were to make the 25-man roster in April, it would exchange one relatively low salary for another.

Those totals put the Reds payroll commitment around $126 million. That’s a conservative baseline regarding roster changes, namely that the team doesn’t shed salary through trades, and does cut Logan Ondrusek, Ludwick and Hannahan. The team would still need to acquire a left fielder and a second utility infielder.

Conclusions

1. The Reds can afford their current roster, but barely.

2. It’s a good thing they dumped Jonathan Broxton’s $9 million salary.

3. A major new expenditure on a left fielder is unlikely without a compensating trade.

Again, whether the decisions getting us to this point were smart, the Reds are where they are with guaranteed contracts and likely arbitration awards. Even assuming generous ongoing increases in payroll, they face real constraints in bringing on new players in 2015.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

http://redlegnation.com/2014/10/01/2013-2014-2015/

The financial context outlined in the previous post set the parameters for big-picture choices confronting the Cincinnati Reds this offseason. Broadly, those options fall into three categories: (1) Stay the course, (2) trade pitching for hitting and (3) blow up the team.

Options 1 and 2 are similar and rely on this basic calculation: 2013 + 2014 = 2015.

Here’s the argument for that math. Those advocating “blow the Reds up” look at the 2013 and 2014 rosters and say the current core group has failed each of those years. They ask, why try another season with basically the same players? While it’s easy to be sympathetic to the frustration that spawns that conclusion, the problem with that thinking is that each of those seasons lacked significant pieces that are readily available in 2015.

The 2013 Reds, for example, not only didn’t have a healthy Johnny Cueto, they also didn’t have the new-and-improved Devin Mesoraco. That’s a Cy Young runner-up and an MVP-caliber hitter. That team won 90 games and made it to the play-in game. Imagine if they added 20-game winner Cueto and 25-homer Mesoraco.

The 2014 team had a litany of injuries, most notably Joey Votto and Jay Bruce. But add also the important limitations on Homer Bailey, Mat Latos, and Aroldis Chapman. Mesoraco also missed time twice on the DL.

Assembling the 2015 Reds primarily from the core, healthy parts of the 2013 and 2014 rosters would look like this:

From 2013 Joey Votto returns healthy from his quad strain and hits .300/.430/.500 — a season at least as good as 2013. Given what we know about his injury, there’s no reason to believe he won’t be back at 100 percent for spring training and the 2015 season. Votto and the Reds have been conservative with the timeline of his second return and he’s almost ready right now.

Jay Bruce comes back after having the offseason to rehabilitate his knee. The 28-year-old Bruce returns to his 2012 and 2013 Silver Slugger numbers – 30 home runs, 40 doubles and hits .260/.330/.500. 2014 was an aberration caused by his mid-season knee surgery and too-quick return to play.

Mat Latos starts the year healthy and puts up his top-of-the-rotation career-average numbers. Homer Bailey gets 30 healthy starts and pitches like he did in 2013 and the last couple months of 2014. Tony Cingrani returns to health and pitches capably in the bullpen.

From 2014 Devin Mesoraco healthy at the start of the season, puts up .275/.350/.500 or better. Todd Frazier hits .275/.335/.480 like he did in 2014 and 2012. Johnny Cueto sets to work on another Cy Young season. Mike Leake continues his steady improvement. Aroldis Chapman strikes out half the batters he faces.

Start with that core of Votto, Bruce, Mesoraco and Frazier and stack those four bats 2-6 in the lineup. Cueto, Latos, Bailey, Leake and Simon in the rotation.A first-class starting rotation. All healthy. Add the defense-oriented guys up the middle — Billy Hamilton, Brandon Phillips and Zack Cozart. Aroldis Chapman closes.

That is not enough, however.

Even implementing a “stay the course” strategy, the Reds need a new left fielder. They could acquire one through free agency or trade.

After we look at the free agent options for LF and the qualities the Reds need in a left fielder, it may turn out that it would make sense to trade a starting pitcher to obtain a bigger LF upgrade. But trading Mat Latos or Mike Leake, for example, for a bat isn’t “blowing the team up.” That trade would be a variation on the theme of sticking with the current core another year.

Others argue for a more radical approach to 2015 than the one outlined above. I’ll discuss that in the next post.

[PhantomPain]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

So in other words, if the stars align then the Reds might make it into the playoffs. Otherwise they are destined to failure...

Seems like every year to me. IF IF IF. If Votto produces. If Bruce produces. If Phillips produces. Sucks that we have to question going into every year whether or not the highest paid guys on the team will actually produce that year.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

So in other words, if the stars align then the Reds might make it into the playoffs. Otherwise they are destined to failure...

Seems like every year to me. IF IF IF. If Votto produces. If Bruce produces. If Phillips produces. Sucks that we have to question going into every year whether or not the highest paid guys on the team will actually produce that year.

We can question Walt's decisions till the cows come home on his contract extensions, but for better or worse, this is what we have to work with.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

http://redlegnation.com/2014/10/06/getting-the-reds-offseason-right-the-big-bang-theory/

The last two seasons have left plenty of Reds fan disappointed and exasperated.

Facing the reality of financial constraint and not liking the status-quo feel of roster conservatism, many instead are calling for Walt Jocketty to blow up the team.

But what would such a Big Bang theory mean, exactly, and is it the right move?

For some fans, it’s the equivalent of opening up a window, sticking their head out and shouting, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to watch all those strikeouts and base running mistakes any more.” Channel Howard Beale, feel better and figure out the details later.

Others see the Reds as having now missed the opportunity to win with this core group of players. They’re ready to trade the headliners for prospects and start rebuilding.

A final segment of Cincinnati fans says, “If the Reds think all they need to do is get healthy, they’re mistaken.” This group believes their perspective is more nuanced than howling out the window or pushing the detonator. But in fact, that point of view is stuffed full of straw.

No one, not even Walt Jocketty, believes that all the Reds need to do is get healthy. No one. The Cincinnati Reds need a new left fielder, at a minimum. Everyone gets that. There is certainly reasonable disagreement about what the Reds can and should give up to acquire one. But those whose argument is that the front office is simply waiting for distal quads and flexor masses to heal are as full of straw as Ray Bolger.

But let’s get back to the notion – a drastic one – of blowing up the team.

First, trading a starting pitcher or Aroldis Chapman for a new left fielder isn’t radical. That isn’t blowing up the team. In fact, some variation of that is Walt Jocketty’s most likely offseason move. There are certainly degrees here. Trading Aroldis Chapman and Johnny Cueto is a bigger step than trading Mike Leake. But if the goal is to acquire 2015 hitting, that’s not a Big Bang detonation. It’s just trading major league pitching for major league hitting.

Second, trading the Reds’ best players for prospects – straight rebuilding – is impractical and not guaranteed to work. Franchises that sell off their premier players for prospects fail more often than they succeed. And in the few examples where rebuilding worked the process took several years. Bob Castellini isn’t going to concede the 2015 season. It’s not in his DNA and it’s not going to happen in the same season he’s hosting the All-Star game.

Trading a star player for a handful of prospects is no sure pathway to the postseason. The Reds have experienced that first hand on the receiving end with Mat Latos. Ask the Padres how they feel about the haul of top young players they received for their stud RHP. In July, Mike Maffie wrote a 4,000-word post detailing the hit-and-miss outcome of trading for prospects.

The Reds need hitting. But they can’t become a better hitting team in 2015 by trading Jay Bruce or Joey Votto. It’s understandable to be frustrated with the two left-handed sluggers’ 2014 seasons. But it’s a huge leap to conclude the Reds should trade either one of them. Successful teams don’t act impulsively in reaction to fan emotions.

A close and realistic look shows the Reds don’t have many encouraging options for trading position players. “Let’s trade our bad players for their good ones” rarely works in fantasy baseball. Try it with Theo Epstein or Brian Cashman.

Joey Votto can’t be moved this offseason for two reasons. Votto didn’t get an opportunity to demonstrate that he’s healthy and he won’t have a chance to do that in time to pull off any blockbuster deal. And even if he could it’s doubtful the Reds could find a trading partner willing to take on the first-baseman’s massive contract.

Face-saving protestations notwithstanding, the Reds tried to trade Brandon Phillips last offseason and couldn’t. With BP a year older and a longer record of injuries and declining performance, Dat contract is even more upside down now. Phillips has also acquired 10/5 veteran rights, which means he can block a trade.

Even if the Reds were simply looking to unload those contracts, it’s unlikely either Votto or DatDude could be shipped off as a salary dump now.

The player who generated the most frustration this summer was Jay Bruce. If you believe the 2014 Bruce is the one who will suit up for the Reds going forward AND if you can find a trading partner who values the 2015 Bruce, at age 28, as the 2012 and 2013 Silver Slugger winner, you might find an opportunity to win a hitting-for-hitting exchange. More likely though, if the Reds shop Bruce, they’d be selling low.

Zack Cozart and Todd Frazier could be traded, but the Reds don’t have obvious in-house replacements that would be improvements, taking defense into account. The league markets for shortstops and third basemen with bats are skimpy. Because of his poor performance at the plate, Cozart wouldn’t bring much in return. It’s hard to think of a third baseman the Reds could realistically acquire to replace Frazier who wouldn’t be a downgrade.

Devin Mesoraco has become the most valuable position player on the team. Trading him is a non-starter. If “untouchable” describes any player on the roster it would be Hot Mes, especially since the Reds would be looking for hitting in return.

Billy Hamilton is simultaneously too amazing and too awful to trade right now. Hamilton’s defense obviously provides substantial value, but his complete collapse at the plate after the All-Star break limits his return. The other team would have to believe his bat ends up somewhere between the extremes of his 2014 season. The SB don’t provide much value given the accompanying CS. On the other hand, he did start to walk more at the end of the season. He could easily improve. And he’s cheap, with two more pre-arbitration years.

That leaves the pitchers. We’ll tackle their value later.

Like shouting out the window, the Big Bang theory for the Reds offseason may feel good in the moment, but it’s hard to see much in the way of real, reliable dividends. It’s worth remembering that Howard Beale was eventually killed because of lousy ratings.

[SlimKibbles]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

The main move they need to make is to trade pitching for a right-handed LF. That's under the assumption that Votto and Bruce come back healthy. Just waiting for guys to get healthy and not do anything else would be a huge mistake. They also need to poach a couple of relievers from elsewhere to shore up the 'pen.

[redsrule]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

Cueto and or Chapman I would trade this offseason absolutely. Cueto should bring a decent haul, if they trade him in the offseason. He's got a team friendly contract for next year (10 mil). Chapman is a guy that I think has more value than he should because of how hard he throws.

I saw on Twitter earlier an interesting idea. Move Frazier to left field and try and get Chase Headley on a cheap one year deal to play 3B next season if he signs a short term deal. He is a career 284/.361/.440 hitter when he doesn't play at pitcher friendly Petco Park.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

http://redlegnation.com/2014/10/07/supply-demand-and-value/

Pitching wins baseball. Or so we’ve been told. Over and over again. Every baseball fan has heard a litany of clichés about pitching being the key to success on the baseball diamond. They’re part of the folklore passed from one generation of baseball fans to the next.

“You can’t have too much pitching.”

“Pitching is 75 percent of the game.”

“Good pitching beats good hitting.”

“Pitching is 90 percent of the game.”

These platitudes have been repeated so often by so many that it seems like they ought to be true. Problem is, like many clichés, they aren’t. Watched pots never boil, really?

Winning a baseball game is equally the product of run production and run prevention. Run production depends on hitting and base running. Run prevention on pitching and fielding.

Bill James was one of the first analysts to rigorously debunk the myth of the overriding importance of pitching’s role. A few years ago, he offered these estimates of the contribution for each factor: Baseball is 42 percent hitting, 8 percent base running, 37 percent pitching and 13 percent fielding.

Notice how James’ run production numbers add up to 50 and the run prevention numbers do, too?

In research published in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, Dr. Charles Pavitt crunched data on hitting, pitching and fielding for every major league team over a 48-year period (1951-1998). He found that hitting accounts for more than 45 percent of teams’ winning records, fielding for 25 percent and pitching for 25 percent.

Simply put, there’s no one set formula for a World Series championship. Some teams certainly do win because of their strong pitching. But having the best arms is not an infallible recipe for success. The 2011 Cardinals and 2009 Yankees are often presented as recent examples of teams that won primarily on the strength of their hitting.

Relative Scarcity

In baseball, as in other industries, value is determined by scarcity. That’s basic supply and demand. While labor markets in professional baseball are far from perfectly free, they still essentially follow economic principles. As with economic decision-makers generally, managing scarcity is the basic problem confronting major league front offices.

Evidence is overwhelming that in recent years, productive hitters have become scarce relative to effective pitchers. And that rarity makes them more valuable.

Since the 2009 season, the number of hitters with 30 home runs in a season declined from 30 to just 11. The number who hit at least 20 homers has fallen from 87 to 57.

Using another measure of power (ISO), the number of players with an ISO greater than .190 has fallen over that same time from 64 to 28. ISO takes doubles and triples into account, in addition to home runs. That means the average team has gone from having two of those hitters to one in just six seasons.

Players who hit .300 have also become more uncommon. In 2009, 42 major league hitters batted .300. This season, only 16 did.

On the flip side, quality pitchers are easier to find. Take ERA as a metric. The number of starting pitchers with an ERA below 4.00 has risen from 43 to 65 since 2009. The number with an ERA below 3.50 has grown from 23 to 36 in the same time. You’ll find similar trends in SIERA and FIP.

You want strikeouts? The number of starting pitchers with more than an 18 percent strikeout rate has risen from 28 in the year 2000 (about one per team) to 51 in 2014 (nearly two per team). The same goes for relief pitchers. The number of relievers with strikeout-rates above 22 percent has nearly tripled since 2000.

You want a hard-thrower? They’re practically growing on trees. In 2007, just 33 starters had a fastball velocity of 91 mph or above. In 2014, out of 88 who qualified, there were 55. Average fastball velocity for relievers has increased from 91.1 mph in 2007 to 92.5 mph today. For starting pitchers, those numbers are 89.8 and 91.4 respectively. Baseball America recently found that 52 minor league pitchers threw 100-mph fastballs this year.

Run Environment

Given these trends with individual hitters and pitchers, it’s not a shock that run prevention has begun to dominate run production throughout baseball.

Major league batting average (.251) and on base percentage (.314) in 2014 were the lowest they have been since 1972, the season before the DH was adopted in the AL. Slugging (.386) in 2014 was its lowest since 1981, a decline from .418 since 2009.

ERA overall has fallen from 4.77 in 2000 to 4.32 in 2009 and 3.74 in 2014. Strikeouts per nine innings (7.70) and the ratio of strikeouts-per walks (2.67) were higher in 2014 than they have ever been in the history of baseball. Mike Maffie documented much of this a few weeks ago.

In terms of runs scored per game, the number fell to 4.07 in 2014, its lowest since 1981 and the back-to-back seasonal average of 2013 and 2014 was the lowest for consecutive years since 1975-76.

Here’s a bit of history to give those numbers context: Baseball reacted to scoring reaching a low of 3.42 runs/game in 1968 by shrinking the strike zone and lowering the pitching mound. Scoring jumped to 4.07 runs/game. That number stabilized around 4.30 runs/game until the mid-80s when scoring started to inch upward, reaching 4.72 runs/game in 1987. Baseball adjusted the strike zone again and scoring fell back to 4.15 runs/game in 1988.

Then came PEDs. In 1992, runs/game stood at 4.12. Within five years, it had reached 5.04 runs/game and headed even higher, reaching a peak of 5.14 r/g in the year 2000. Run production didn’t decline significantly until 2008, the season after the Mitchell Report was published.

Factors in addition to a cleaner game have eroded run scoring. Defensive shifts, bullpen depth and specialization, surging fastball velocity and an expanding strike zone have each played an important role.

The Reds Have Too Much Run Prevention

The challenge for a general manager is building the best baseball team possible operating under a budget constraint. That means allocating resources where they have the greatest marginal value.

The Cincinnati Reds haven’t escaped the gravitational pull of the collapsing run environment outlined above. Despite playing half their games in the Great American Small Park, in 2014, the Reds were 28th in runs scored, 29th in on-base-percentage, 20th in isolated power and 29th in wRC+.

Meanwhile, they were among league leaders (8th in MLB) in run prevention, due to their starting pitching but also because of their #1-rated defense.

The platitude “you can’t have enough pitching” is wildly inapplicable when Joey Votto and Jay Bruce get hurt. In isolation, you can’t have enough hitting or defense, either. But teams don’t operate with unlimited resources. Offense and pitching trade off because of resource constraints. You certainly can have too much pitching if payroll limits mean your team has too little hitting.

Given the Reds great defense, it hasn’t proven difficult to find capable starting pitching. The Reds lost Johnny Cueto to injury for most of 2013, in stepped Tony Cingrani. When Bronson Arroyo left and Mat Latos started the 2014 season on the DL, Alfredo Simon did the job. At the end of 2014, when Homer Bailey got hurt, he was replaced capably by Dylan Axelrod and David Holmberg.

The overall trend in baseball doesn’t mean that specific teams might not still need to acquire their own dominant pitching. But it’s crystal clear that the Reds aren’t one of them. They desperately need to upgrade their run scoring relative to run prevention.

Capitalizing on Market Inefficiencies

These fast changing conditions have profound implications for the player market and how the Reds should operate this offseason.

The front office must come to grips with the reality that the value of baseball players has changed radically in the last five years. Productive hitters have become the scarce commodity that effective pitching was ten years ago. The fact that this has happened in the blink of an eye doesn’t make it any less real or crucial. But it does present an opportunity.

Walt Jocketty won seven NL Central division titles with the Cardinals from 1996-2006, NL Championships in 2004 and 2006 and the World Series in 2006. His 2005 team also won 100 games.

In that era, focusing on run prevention and stockpiling pitching was how teams generally won games and championships. Today you have to ask if holding on to every last pitcher is still the way to reach the postseason and win the World Series.

General managers who learned their lessons in the Steroid Era and haven’t changed may still follow the now out-of-date pitching clichés. They may have lost touch with accurate player valuation.

The Reds not only can’t afford to be one of those out-of-step clubs, they need to exploit that market inefficiency. The Reds must take advantage of the rapidly shifting player market and their own relative surplus of starting pitching. They need to identify trading partners who still believe that “pitching is the currency of baseball” and trade run prevention for run production while the exchange rate is favorable.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

http://redlegnation.com/2014/10/08/on-base-percentage-uber-alles/

The previous posts in this series have attempted to establish that the Reds need to ignore out-of-date clichés and trade pitching for hitting. Given the constraints they face in terms of payroll and the current roster of position players, the new guy will likely be a left fielder. The posts following this one will look at the left fielder market, both free agents and trade candidates. But to narrow the options, it’s important to identify qualities the Reds should look to acquire in a hitter.

1. OBP above all

In 2014, the Reds lineup suffered a catastrophic drop in on-base-percentage, both in absolute terms and in relation to the rest of the National League. Table 1 shows the severe change. The Reds went from generally being decent-to-good compared to the rest of the league the previous four seasons to 16 percent below NL average in 2014. (It’s telling to see how closely the third column correlates to the health of Joey Votto’s left leg.)



Overall, the Reds had 272 fewer base runners this season compared to last. John Fay nailed it recently when he isolated the cause and quantified the dramatic decline. The sharp fall was primarily due to the the strain of Joey Votto’s left distal quad and the loss of Shin-Soo Choo to free agency.

Votto got on base a whopping 316 times in 2013. Compare that to the Reds’ #3 hitters in 2014, who combined to get on base only 219 times. Shin-Soo Choo got on base 302 times in 2013, while Billy Hamilton reached only 176 times. Between the two, that’s 223 fewer base runners.

What was the impact of that deficit of base runners alone on run production?

34 percent of Reds base runners scored in 2014 (compared to 34.5 percent in 2013). If the 272 extra runners had scored at a 34 percent rate it produces 92 more runs. That’s at least 9-10 more wins (maybe more considering the mind-boggling number of 1-run losses the Reds suffered). And that doesn’t factor in the dynamic effects that those extra hits and walks would have had on other players.

If you need more evidence of a link between on-base percentage and productive offense, here’s a cheap, calculated appeal to a happier day: The Big Red Machine led the major leagues in OBP in 1975 and 1976, by a country mile, including the AL teams using a DH.

So the guiding principle for the Reds brass when looking for new hitters this offseason is: Acquire on-base-percentage.

2. Walk-rates and Willy Taveras

Stipulate: Hits are preferable to walks. The run value of a walk was .689 in 2014, while the run value of a single was .892.

But the ability to draw a walk is more consistent throughout a season and from one year to the next than is the ability to get a hit. Hitters slump and experience wild swings in luck with balls put in play. The ability to take a walk can be a powerful hedge against those variances. For example, in 2013, Shin-Soo Choo struggled mightily against left-handed pitching. But his 11 percent walk-rate against lefties elevated his paltry .215 batting average to a well above average .347 OBP.

That brings us inevitably to the cautionary tale of Willy Taveras.

Recall the offseason prior to 2009. The Reds had ditched Corey Patterson and were looking for a lead off hitter. They signed Willy Taveras, who had been released by the Colorado Rockies, for that role. (The club and Taveras inked a … wait for it … yep, a two-year deal.)

The Reds had a pair of obvious data points on Taveras. In 2007, Taveras had hit .320/.367 (AVG/OBP) for the Rockies. In 2008, he slumped to .251/.308. Back then, the league OBP was .335, so Taveras was above average in 2007 and considerably below in 2008.

When announcing the signing of his new center fielder, Walt Jocketty said that the Reds saw value in Taveras, “if he gets back to being an on base guy that hits ground balls, it creates a lot of havoc on the bases.”

Leaving aside the sticky fact that Taveras had identical ground-ball percentages in 2007 and 2008, the real fatal flaw with the Reds thinking was that Taveras rarely walked. His BB% was 5.1 percent in 2007 and 6.7 percent in 2008, several percent below league average (8.9 percent).

In other words, Taveras’ on-base-skill was enormously dependent on his batting average. If Taveras had been a consistent .300 hitter like Pete Rose, the walk rate wouldn’t have mattered much. But Willy Taveras was no Hit King, a surprise to no one outside the Reds front office.

The evidence was obvious that Taveras’ batting average fluctuated wildly. His .320 AVG in 2007 was plainly a product of an inflated BABIP of .370. In 2008, when Taveras’ hits didn’t fall in at such an extreme rate (.296 BABIP), well, his batting average and on base percentage tumbled. Not exactly what you want in a lead off hitter who also has zero power.

Sort of predictably, Taveras cratered for the Reds. In 437 disastrous plate appearances, he batted just .208 and walked a pathetic 4.1 percent of the time. Dusty Baker, of course, batted Willy Taveras first or second all year, except for seven (hitless) pinch hitting appearances.

Painful lesson: In looking for new hitters, the Reds should acquire players with above-average walk-rates. The target rate was 7.9 percent or above in 2014, let’s call it an even 8.

3. Speaking truth about power

Yes, the Reds should look for hitters with high OBP rates that have relatively large walk components. But they can’t stop there.

For any new acquisition, the front office must avoid hitters that scratch out decent on-base percentages but offer little power. The contribution of those hitters tends to be hollow. They are certainly preferable to players with equally empty but lower OBP. But power matters. To reverse the old adage, power is money.

Let’s return to the case of Shin-Soo Choo’s 2013 season. If you recall, he got on base 126 more times than Billy Hamilton did this year. Choo also scored 107 runs compared to Hamilton’s 72. Here’s where power comes in: Choo drove himself in 21 times. That’s nearly a fifth of his runs scored. Choo’s 15 home run edge over Hamilton accounts for nearly half the run differential between the two players. Nearly half. Because of power, not walks, not getting hit by pitches, home runs.

Making sure the new hitter has solid power is important especially because there’s a pretty good chance the Reds will continue to bat Hamilton first, even if the new guy has a substantially better OBP. Havoc being what it is. The new left fielder may hit as low as sixth.

A good way to measure a hitter’s power is the statistic ISO, which stands for isolated power. It indicates how often a player hits for extra bases and how many extra bases. Slugging percentage (SLG) is a more traditional statistic, but it rises when a batter hits a single. That means two batters hitting .200 and .300 respectively might each have a SLG of .400, but their power would be considerably different. ISO isn’t complicated or fancy, it simply subtracts AVG from SLG to isolate the effect of extra base hits. In the above example, the first hitter’s ISO would be .200 and the second hitter’s would be .100. Among National League hitters with 400 at bats in 2014, Devin Mesoraco was second, to Giancarlo Stanton, in ISO.

Despite Mesoraco’s great year, the 2014 Reds experienced an ISO collapse, as Table 2 shows.



One way not to identify power hitters is by looking at their RBI totals. As we’ve come to understand, RBIs are context-driven. They depend largely on opportunity provided by runners being on base. The fact that the best hitters seem to accumulate them only proves that managers generally know who their best hitters are and bat them in the middle of the lineup. Hitters aren’t talented because they get lots of RBIs, they produce lots of RBIs because they are talented.

Modern-thinking GMs don’t bother with RBI totals when evaluating players. For example, Theo Epstein, who led the Boston Red Sox to World Series titles in 2004 (at the age of 30) and in 2007 said, “You guys can talk about RBI if you want. We ignore them in the front office … it simply is not a way that we use to evaluate offensive players.”

4. Hoping the Reds get it

Over the years, Walt Jocketty has used the phrase “RBI-guy” a scary number of times (2008, 2009, 2011, got sad and quit looking).

If that’s just Jocketty shorthand for power hitter, then fine. But if instead, he’s looking for players whose RBI totals outpace that hitter’s apparent skills, then the Reds could end up on the wrong side of Mesozoic Era market inefficiency. Brandon Phillips knocked in 100+ runs in 2013 in large part because Shin-Soo Choo and Joey Votto got on base about 600 times ahead of him.

There are reasons, however, to be optimistic that Walt Jocketty gets it.

Jocketty did trade for the Platonic ideal, Shin-Soo Choo, last year. On the other hand, Jocketty nearly repeated the Taveras tragedy when he came within a hair’s breadth of trading for Ben Revere instead of Choo. The Twins bailed Jocketty out by sending Revere to the Phillies. In two seasons, Ben Revere has hit a total of two home runs and walked 3.0 percent of the time. Not sure how one GM targets Ben Revere and Shin-Soo Choo for the same job, but whatever.

Happily, in a recent interview with John Fay, Jocketty identified the failure to get on base as the primary deficiency in the Reds lineup. “Offensively, I think you recognize we didn’t get as many guys on base this year,” said the Reds GM. “Fewer guys on base, fewer runs are going to score. We’ve got to take a hard look at that.”

To end this on a positive note, I’ll leave it there and not mention it shouldn’t take a hard look to figure that out.

[jasontoddwhitt]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

http://redlegnation.com/2014/10/08/obp-bb-and-iso-targets/

In this morning’s post, the case was made that the Reds should look at on-base percentage (OBP), walk-rate (BB%) and isolated power (SO) as three important numbers for judging possible new players.

To provide context for what elite, good, average and poor rates are for those stats, let’s look the numbers for major league baseball in the 2014 season.

146 players had enough plate appearances (500) to qualify for the batting title. That’s about five per team. The tables below break down those 146 players into performance percentiles. Keep in mind these are averages etc. for regular players. There are many more major league players last year who were worse than these who did not make it to 500 at bats. But since the Reds will presumably be looking for a regular LF this winter, it seems most relevant to look at criteria compared to regulars, not all players, from the previous year.

Also, for each statistic, the Cincinnati Reds players who had at least 220 plate appearances are placed in the appropriate category.

First, let’s look at on-base percentage:



Joey Votto is the only Reds player with an elite (defined as top 10 percent) on-base percentage. Devin Mesoraco made the top 20 percent and Todd Frazier’s OBP was well above average for regulars. Other than those three hitters, the team OBP numbers are calamitous. Five of the Reds eleven players were in the bottom ten percent.

Next, let’s look at walk-rates:



Votto, again, is the only Reds player in elite territory. In fact, Votto’s 17.3 percent would have led the majors in walk-rate. In 2013, Votto and Shin-Soo Choo placed first and second in walk-rate in the majors. Devin Mesoraco has a good walk-rate and Jay Bruce, Todd Frazier and Frazier are right around major league average. Again the Reds are well-represented in the bottom 20 percent.

Finally, let’s look at isolated power:



Devin Mesoraco’s ISO was elite in 2014. Todd Frazier was next, falling just outside the top 20 percent. The Reds had several hitters in the middle third, mostly toward the top of that group. Once again, five Reds players finished in the bottom 20 percent.

Conclusion

On Friday, we start looking at the available options, beginning with free agents. An ideal package of target numbers appears to be a .330 OBP or better, an 8 percent walk-rate and an ISO above .125. Obviously, you’d be willing to accept a lower ISO if the batter had an extra-high OBP and vice versa. And there are other factors, such as defense and cost, to consider as well.

More discussion of all that on Friday.

[CaseIH]

Re: 2014 Cincinnati Reds Thread

http://redlegnation.com/2014/10/07/s...and-and-value/

Pitching wins baseball. Or so we’ve been told. Over and over again. Every baseball fan has heard a litany of clichés about pitching being the key to success on the baseball diamond. They’re part of the folklore passed from one generation of baseball fans to the next.

“You can’t have too much pitching.”

“Pitching is 75 percent of the game.”

“Good pitching beats good hitting.”

“Pitching is 90 percent of the game.”

These platitudes have been repeated so often by so many that it seems like they ought to be true. Problem is, like many clichés, they aren’t. Watched pots never boil, really?

Winning a baseball game is equally the product of run production and run prevention. Run production depends on hitting and base running. Run prevention on pitching and fielding.

Bill James was one of the first analysts to rigorously debunk the myth of the overriding importance of pitching’s role. A few years ago, he offered these estimates of the contribution for each factor: Baseball is 42 percent hitting, 8 percent base running, 37 percent pitching and 13 percent fielding.

Notice how James’ run production numbers add up to 50 and the run prevention numbers do, too?

In research published in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, Dr. Charles Pavitt crunched data on hitting, pitching and fielding for every major league team over a 48-year period (1951-1998). He found that hitting accounts for more than 45 percent of teams’ winning records, fielding for 25 percent and pitching for 25 percent.

Simply put, there’s no one set formula for a World Series championship. Some teams certainly do win because of their strong pitching. But having the best arms is not an infallible recipe for success. The 2011 Cardinals and 2009 Yankees are often presented as recent examples of teams that won primarily on the strength of their hitting.

Relative Scarcity

In baseball, as in other industries, value is determined by scarcity. That’s basic supply and demand. While labor markets in professional baseball are far from perfectly free, they still essentially follow economic principles. As with economic decision-makers generally, managing scarcity is the basic problem confronting major league front offices.

Evidence is overwhelming that in recent years, productive hitters have become scarce relative to effective pitchers. And that rarity makes them more valuable.

Since the 2009 season, the number of hitters with 30 home runs in a season declined from 30 to just 11. The number who hit at least 20 homers has fallen from 87 to 57.

Using another measure of power (ISO), the number of players with an ISO greater than .190 has fallen over that same time from 64 to 28. ISO takes doubles and triples into account, in addition to home runs. That means the average team has gone from having two of those hitters to one in just six seasons.

Players who hit .300 have also become more uncommon. In 2009, 42 major league hitters batted .300. This season, only 16 did.

On the flip side, quality pitchers are easier to find. Take ERA as a metric. The number of starting pitchers with an ERA below 4.00 has risen from 43 to 65 since 2009. The number with an ERA below 3.50 has grown from 23 to 36 in the same time. You’ll find similar trends in SIERA and FIP.

You want strikeouts? The number of starting pitchers with more than an 18 percent strikeout rate has risen from 28 in the year 2000 (about one per team) to 51 in 2014 (nearly two per team). The same goes for relief pitchers. The number of relievers with strikeout-rates above 22 percent has nearly tripled since 2000.

You want a hard-thrower? They’re practically growing on trees. In 2007, just 33 starters had a fastball velocity of 91 mph or above. In 2014, out of 88 who qualified, there were 55. Average fastball velocity for relievers has increased from 91.1 mph in 2007 to 92.5 mph today. For starting pitchers, those numbers are 89.8 and 91.4 respectively. Baseball America recently found that 52 minor league pitchers threw 100-mph fastballs this year.

Run Environment

Given these trends with individual hitters and pitchers, it’s not a shock that run prevention has begun to dominate run production throughout baseball.

Major league batting average (.251) and on base percentage (.314) in 2014 were the lowest they have been since 1972, the season before the DH was adopted in the AL. Slugging (.386) in 2014 was its lowest since 1981, a decline from .418 since 2009.

ERA overall has fallen from 4.77 in 2000 to 4.32 in 2009 and 3.74 in 2014. Strikeouts per nine innings (7.70) and the ratio of strikeouts-per walks (2.67) were higher in 2014 than they have ever been in the history of baseball. Mike Maffie documented much of this a few weeks ago.

In terms of runs scored per game, the number fell to 4.07 in 2014, its lowest since 1981 and the back-to-back seasonal average of 2013 and 2014 was the lowest for consecutive years since 1975-76.

Here’s a bit of history to give those numbers context: Baseball reacted to scoring reaching a low of 3.42 runs/game in 1968 by shrinking the strike zone and lowering the pitching mound. Scoring jumped to 4.07 runs/game. That number stabilized around 4.30 runs/game until the mid-80s when scoring started to inch upward, reaching 4.72 runs/game in 1987. Baseball adjusted the strike zone again and scoring fell back to 4.15 runs/game in 1988.

Then came PEDs. In 1992, runs/game stood at 4.12. Within five years, it had reached 5.04 runs/game and headed even higher, reaching a peak of 5.14 r/g in the year 2000. Run production didn’t decline significantly until 2008, the season after the Mitchell Report was published.

Factors in addition to a cleaner game have eroded run scoring. Defensive shifts, bullpen depth and specialization, surging fastball velocity and an expanding strike zone have each played an important role.

The Reds Have Too Much Run Prevention

The challenge for a general manager is building the best baseball team possible operating under a budget constraint. That means allocating resources where they have the greatest marginal value.

The Cincinnati Reds haven’t escaped the gravitational pull of the collapsing run environment outlined above. Despite playing half their games in the Great American Small Park, in 2014, the Reds were 28th in runs scored, 29th in on-base-percentage, 20th in isolated power and 29th in wRC+.

Meanwhile, they were among league leaders (8th in MLB) in run prevention, due to their starting pitching but also because of their #1-rated defense.

The platitude “you can’t have enough pitching” is wildly inapplicable when Joey Votto and Jay Bruce get hurt. In isolation, you can’t have enough hitting or defense, either. But teams don’t operate with unlimited resources. Offense and pitching trade off because of resource constraints. You certainly can have too much pitching if payroll limits mean your team has too little hitting.

Given the Reds great defense, it hasn’t proven difficult to find capable starting pitching. The Reds lost Johnny Cueto to injury for most of 2013, in stepped Tony Cingrani. When Bronson Arroyo left and Mat Latos started the 2014 season on the DL, Alfredo Simon did the job. At the end of 2014, when Homer Bailey got hurt, he was replaced capably by Dylan Axelrod and David Holmberg.

The overall trend in baseball doesn’t mean that specific teams might not still need to acquire their own dominant pitching. But it’s crystal clear that the Reds aren’t one of them. They desperately need to upgrade their run scoring relative to run prevention.

Capitalizing on Market Inefficiencies

These fast changing conditions have profound implications for the player market and how the Reds should operate this offseason.

The front office must come to grips with the reality that the value of baseball players has changed radically in the last five years. Productive hitters have become the scarce commodity that effective pitching was ten years ago. The fact that this has happened in the blink of an eye doesn’t make it any less real or crucial. But it does present an opportunity.

Walt Jocketty won seven NL Central division titles with the Cardinals from 1996-2006, NL Championships in 2004 and 2006 and the World Series in 2006. His 2005 team also won 100 games.

In that era, focusing on run prevention and stockpiling pitching was how teams generally won games and championships. Today you have to ask if holding on to every last pitcher is still the way to reach the postseason and win the World Series.

General managers who learned their lessons in the Steroid Era and haven’t changed may still follow the now out-of-date pitching clichés. They may have lost touch with accurate player valuation.

The Reds not only can’t afford to be one of those out-of-step clubs, they need to exploit that market inefficiency. The Reds must take advantage of the rapidly shifting player market and their own relative surplus of starting pitching. They need to identify trading partners who still believe that “pitching is the currency of baseball” and trade run prevention for run production while the exchange rate is favorable.

That article is saying the exact same thing I told my wife the Reds meeded to do at the end of the 13 season,lol. When you have a anemic offense, but pitching and D is good, you have to give up some in the area you good in to fix the the area thats keeping the team for its ultimate goal

Pitching will get you only so far, but if you cant at least manufacture runs that good pitching is wasted, as we seen in both 12 and 13 when we not only had good starting pitching, but a lock down Bullpen. This year our starters were good, but the bullpen was as bad at doing their job as the hitters were at their job.

To fix what needs fixing Walt's got to give up some ML pitching or if he refuses to do that, then he is going to have to give up some of the higly touted arms we have in the farm system.

Not sure with Latos injuries this year if teams would be willing to give up much, but Cueto would definitely bring back some hitting, same with Chapman.

I really dont see Walt trading Cueto or Chapman, but he has to do something to fix the offense and bullpen.

Walt has been known to be creative so hopefully he can do that again to fix the problems. It would be great if Walt can fix the team without giving up Cueto and/or Chapman, but Im not sure how unless he gives up the young arms in the minors. Then you rgiving away what possibly could be very good cheap pitching.

While Cueto hasnt ever had a serious injury he has been plagued by spending time on the DL, and after he pitched a lot of innings in 12 he spent most of 13 on the DL, so IMO it might be wise to trade him while his value is high. Plus if Cueto were to have another stellar yr injury free in 15 it will take a kings ransom to keep him beyond. I like Cueto and hate to give up our Ace, but IMO it would be the smartest move to make to fix the offense.