Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

Cordero Signs with Cincy

Well, the Reds certainly opened up the pocketbooks on this one.  Yahoo's reporting that Francisco Cordero signed with Cincy for $46M over 4 years, which averages to $11.5M per year.  Yahoo is also reporting that the Cordero contract includes a team option for a 5th year at approx. $11M.

This is the largest four-year deal ever for a closer, surpassing Billy Wagner's $43M/4 deal with the Mets two years ago.  It's not the richest contract ever for a closer, that would be Mariano Rivera's $45M/3 deal with the Yankees a week ago, but it's still a ton of money.

So what does everyone think about this one?  Cordero's got sick stuff and all, but he walks a few too many batters for my taste.  I don't think the move to GAB will hurt him as much as most, since he's familiar with pitching in offensive environments in Texas and Milwaukee.

Another blow for the Milwaukee bullpen, which has now lost both Cordero and Linebrink, although with Scott perhaps it's addition by subtraction.  Both departures were probably expected, so I'm sure the front office has a plan to shore the pen up.  It'll be interesting to see how Melvin responds.  The last 2 years, he's gone ouside the system and acquired bullpen pieces via trade.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=txredscordero&prov=st&type=lgns

0 recs  |  Comment 71 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Deal
Terrible.  Makes the Hunter signing seem reasonably sane.

by GregJP on Nov 23, 2007 6:57 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

money
thats a whole lot of money right there

by Maverick on Nov 23, 2007 6:57 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

richest deal for a closer
isn't that still bj ryan's toronto contract? am i misremembering, or was it 5/$55M?

by jpahk on Nov 23, 2007 7:16 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Rich
Total dollars on BJ was $57M/5, I believe.  But the media refers to Rivera's deal as the "richest ever" because it's got a higher annual amount.

by Yakker on Nov 23, 2007 8:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

$47/5 years
Ryan's contract

by judges on Nov 25, 2007 1:10 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Rivera
15 mil per year
Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 23, 2007 7:20 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

What Next??
So.. Cinci gets bullpen help.  They could use another SP or two.  So do they move Hamilton, Dunn, or someone else for the pitching help?  They spent a lot on a need (relief pitching)but I just did not expect it on one guy.

by jrbro on Nov 23, 2007 7:33 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Because he's on steroids?
Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 23, 2007 7:50 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

+1
Trading either Hamilton or Freel this offseason makes sense.

by Yakker on Nov 24, 2007 5:08 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Alpha Reliever
Cordero is definitely an alpha reliever, and they are consistantly the least repected players out there. In this case, since the deal is four years long, it carries a lot of risk so it's probalbly a good deal for Cordero, but to act like it's a violent overpay is just silly. In a vacuum, the number seem about right for a guy who will project to a park/defense neutral ERA of ~3.00 over 70 leveraged innings, but the Reds had a bigger need than most "contenders" since they didn't have an alpha in their pen.  Not only do they gain the value from upgrading from Weathers to Codero, but they get to move everybody down a slot, which, in theroy, would upgrade them at another spot or two.

Whether the Reds shoud be making moves like this is debatable, but when they hired Dusty Baker as their manager, they basically commited to winning now. Now, they've got one alpha out there and could potentially have two if they go with Bailey or Cueto in the pen. Harang, Arroyo, Bailey, and Cueto gives them a little depth in the rotation if they go that route. They've got a reasonable offense with a lot of upside, so they really were in desperate need of a big time reliever. Obviously there are a lot of ways things can pan out for this team, given it's youth, but this signing goes a long ways towards getting them where they want to be.

The final note, which should put this in perspective, this is a much better deal than what Carlos Silva is going to get. Cordero is a more valuable pitcher, and they will get about the same contract. To compare this to the lunacy of the Hunter deal is absurd.

by rwperu34 on Nov 23, 2007 7:41 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Alpha Relievers
So is Jeremy Accardo not an  "alpha reliver"?

Cordero is 33 years old, and Accardo I believe is just a bit younger.

Better stuff??  I take Accardo.

Terrible, terrible, terrible, deal.

by GregJP on Nov 23, 2007 8:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well
  1. No, Accardo is not an alpha reliever. He is a closer. There is a big difference.
  2. Cordero signed with the Reds, Accardo pitches for the Blue Jays:)

by rwperu34 on Nov 23, 2007 9:13 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The deal is still awful.
Unless you have a strong working history with a reliever you want to sign in part for good faith and PR reasons, a la Rivera, giving reserves contracts that long is foolish. You make relievers out of failed Minor League starters, and there are a lot of those and it doesn't take a lot of resources to acquire them. Most relievers, among the best or not, have short peaks and are extremely unpredictable.

Or you can acquire NPB free agent relievers. They're talented, inexpensive, and don't take any long term commitment. And best of all, if you buy one right, you'll get run prevention just as good as the rest of the relief aces for a massive bargain.

by elrey34 on Nov 23, 2007 11:08 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Er...
"Failed Minor League starters" should be "Major" League starters.

by elrey34 on Nov 23, 2007 11:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Good Signing
Reds have a lot of money to spend with Jay Bruce, Joey Votto, Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto all being cheap regulars very soon.

The Reds haven't had a decent closer for a while and Francisco Cordero is coming off one of his best years if not his best.  Most imporantly for him, a 4.78 K/BB ratio.  Compare that to a 2.29 for his career.  His .218 BAA was also the best he's posted in a full season.  And the 12.22 Ks/9 innings was the best total of his career.

Cordero is one of the Top 10 closers in the game.  No arguing that.  The Reds put the money to good use.  Much better use than 4 years, 40 million for Carlos "No better than Jason Marquis" Silva.

There's talk that Josh Hamilton could be on the move for a starting pitcher.  If I were Cincy, I'd try to see if Baltimore is still dangling Erik Bedard for a slugger.  I'd offer Adam Dunn and Homer Bailey.

The Reds still have a lot of money left to spend if they are really serious about winning.

by UncleBuck44 on Nov 23, 2007 7:50 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Oh NO you di'int
Oh, snap!

Did you really just argue that this was a good deal because of how DISSIMILAR 2007 was from the rest of Cordero's career? You're saying this was a good move because Cordero's numbers from last year were waaaay different from his career norms? You're saying that Cinci made the right move here by paying for Cordero's career year like it was a typical one?

Amazing....

For the record, I like this for the Reds. I think they'll be able to move Dunn or Hamilton or someone for a starter and put themselves in the mix in the NL Central next year.

by mraver on Nov 24, 2007 12:24 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

League Switch
Although the poster above didn't mention it, it's possible that the switch in leagues and playing a the worst division in organized sports history helped out with the numbers. I'd say, given the fact that he stayed in the same division, there's a very good chance he could repeat his "new found" sucess.

by rwperu34 on Nov 24, 2007 10:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

League Switch?
In general, not sure that switching from the AL to the NL would materially benefit a closer, since, presumably, he'd face a pinch-hitter for the pitcher's spot.

by Yakker on Nov 26, 2007 1:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

-11111111111
"worst division in organized sports history"

Nice try troll.  Congrats on replacing GregJP & Joba the Mediocre for worst poster in the history of the universe.

1994  Texas Rangers were leading the AL West despite being 10 games under .500

The Cubs led the ML in pitching strikeouts and second in the NL in ERA.

I'd love to end this with a quote from Sir John Gielgud from Arthur in response to Paul Gleeson but I'd get banned.  Mahalo

Matt

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

by WayneCampbell05 on Nov 27, 2007 1:41 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

instead of -11111
try -99999

didn't you know chicks dig big numbers?

by pedrophile on Nov 27, 2007 8:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

UHHH
I'm saying this is a good move because Cordero has been really good outside of a half season with Texas in 2006 and because Texas needed a shut down closer.  I thought that I made it pretty obvious.
I pointed out his 2007 stats to show he may be improving with control of his stuff.  If he isn't and 2007 was just a career year, he'll go back to being a 40 save guy that walks 10 more people.  NO BIG DEAL.  Kind of silly to even attack my point when you think about it.  Nothing was gained in the discussion.

I think a lot of people think Cordero isn't worth the money because of a bad half season in Texas.  Outside of that he is easily one of the Top 10 closers in the game.
You wanna talk about ridiculous contracts for closers, how about 15 million a year for the aging Mariano Rivera?  That move set up this deal for Cordero.  The Reds needed a closer and it was either 46 million for 4 years for Cordero or wait a year and try Nathan or K-Rod for 5 years, 70-75 million.

by UncleBuck44 on Nov 24, 2007 12:35 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

well
The way you phrased the argument, you went about pointing out the specific ways in which his 2007 was different from the rest of his career.

What you seem to have meant to do was point out that, while his 2007 was significantly better than his previous numbers, his previous numbers were already very, very good, and the contract is justified on the basis of his pre-2007 work. In this context, his 2007 numbers provide a basis to speculate that he may actually play better than his career numbers over the duration.

But like I say, I like the move for the Reds. :-)

by mraver on Nov 24, 2007 4:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

2007
The point of posting his 2007 numbers was to say that he earned the contract.  What did everyone expect him to get after he had a career year?  Especially after Rivera got 3 years, 45 million.  Sorry if it didn't come out that way but that's what I meant.

As for what you said I should have wrote:

"What you seem to have meant to do was point out that, while his 2007 was significantly better than his previous numbers, his previous numbers were already very, very good, and the contract is justified on the basis of his pre-2007 work."

I already said that when I said "Cordero is one of the Top 10 closers in baseball.  No arguing that."  Not many people call one year wonders one of the 10 best at their position.  I don't.

by UncleBuck44 on Nov 24, 2007 4:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mota
dont worry the Brewers have mota to close games

by Fair Projector on Nov 23, 2007 7:50 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Scary...
Now that is one of the scariest thoughts of all

by jrbro on Nov 23, 2007 8:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Turnbow
Anyone think Turnbow will get a chance to close again? If he could only cut down on the walks....

by marchmadness on Nov 23, 2007 8:23 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

yeah
I'd say he's the favorite right now.

by Havok1517 on Nov 23, 2007 10:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

luis pena
ORGANIZATIONAL DEPTH REPORTS (link fixed)
variables don't; constants aren't

by overlord on Nov 24, 2007 1:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I really dont see why its such a horrible deal
Is it an expensive deal yes, but the reds bullpen was and has been AWFUL, and this team in a weak NL central has a good lineup a solid front 2 of their rotation (harang and arroyo), 2 very talent kids coming up soon (bailey and cueto), they just got rid of miltons conttract.  

THis deal allows them to stretch out the rest of their bullpen, Weathers now becomes the 7th/8th inning bridge to cordero, the guys who were doing that last year are no 6th inning guys and can be matched up better.  It address the reds Achilles heal the past few years.

As far as money, each team is under more pressure to put their revenue sharing money into on field products (see Gil Meche signeing last year).  The reds along with every other team in MLB got a 30 million dollar check from MLB.com revenues, and with revenue sharing the reds probably got about 50 million in extra money from MLB this year.  Its nice to see them make sure they spent that money on an elite player with a proven track record.

He has had a k/9 of over 10 or higher since 2003 (tech 9.9 in 2003),  He has had a k/bb ratio of over 2.4 since 2003, including a nice 4.8 in his first full season in the NL.  This is a reliever with an elite skill set and a proven ability to close games.  

He will turn 33 in may of the 2008 season making him 36 when this contract ends.  Which in todays era, is really not that bad, closers seem to be able to hold their skills fairly late into their careers.

Just something to point out.

In 1998 Greg maddux was the highes paid pitcher in baseball, he currently makes more than he did in 1998.  If someone signed maddux to a 10 year 100 million dollar deal in 1998 people would've gone nuts, irionically he would've been underpaid most of his career, and paid appropriately now.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 2:39 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Well
I don't think it's a horrible deal, but I also don't think this is the best use of $12M per year for the next four (or five) years for Cincy.

Yes, the contract will get cheaper over time, but you can use that argument to justify just about any contract.

I think the point that Cordero represents a significant upgrade to Weathers is a good one.  However, I think that the point that good relief pitchers can be had cheaply (see, e.g., Putz, Papelbon, Saito, and even Cordero, when he first came up with Texas) is also true.  

So, the issue for me is, do the Reds honestly think that Cordero is the last piece of the puzzle that's going to put this team into contention in the NL Central?

Let's not forget, this team was 72-90 last year, and their third-order win/loss totals were pretty close to that too, so they shouldn't expect to pick up too many games based on mean reversion.

What's going to change in 2008?  The back end of the rotation is still weak.  (Frankly, Arroyo at #2 is not my idea of a playoff caliber team either.)  They're still waiting for Encarnacion to play to his potential in the field and at the plate, they're still running Hatteberg out there at 1B, and they really can't count on anyone from the farm to help them win a pennant.  Plus, Griffey and Dunn are still eating up way too much of the payroll, and neither can be traded easily this offseason (Junior has full 10-5 rights, and Dunn's got a no trade through June 15th).

Do you really think this move gets them that much closer to winning the division?  I don't.  Remember, they only have a $70M payroll, and they just spent 17% of it on a guy who's going to pitch 5% of their total innings.

by Yakker on Nov 24, 2007 4:49 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

thanks for stating my point
My point is that you can say that about any contract, people do way too much complaining about contracts, I cant remember the last free agent signing of a star player that everyone was like "what a deal"!!!.  

That cheap reliever thing is a cop out answer.  Yes teams have found cheap relievers, no they dont grow on trees.  If it was so easy to find cheap releivers, every team would have them.  the reds have a lot of cheap releivers.. they all sucked.  

This allows the reds to move their entire bullpen down a rung on the ladder, and everyone is better then the guys below them, so that improves the entire bullpen by at least 1 rung.  

The reds team had the worst save % of any team in baseball.  Moving weathers into the 7th/8th inning spot and Cordero in the 9th should improve that drastically.  

If your point is that cordero is getting a lot of money, thats fine. point made.

Let me see, so spending 18 million on a hitter who will only get less than 10% of your At bats is better then spending 12 million on a pitcher who pitches a huge percentage of high leverage situations.

If the reds had even a league avg save% they might have been in contention.  

Yes they have other holes, but they do have cheap players coming up to fill those holes.

Votto, Bruce, Bailey, Cueto.  Hamilton possibly being healthy for a full year.  THis is a team that should be making moves to compete.

What would you have them do, not sign anyone because they dont feel like spending the money?

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 12:19 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

FA
I cant remember the last free agent signing of a star player that everyone was like "what a deal"!!!.  

------

It wasn't a free agent signing but the 7 year, 105 million dollar extension given to Albert Pujols after the 2003 season looked like a damn good deal.
Pujols is perhaps the most underpaid player in the game.

by UncleBuck44 on Nov 24, 2007 12:42 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

yes, he wasnt a free agent for about 3 more years
He was in his first year of arbitration eligibility in 2004 when he signed that contract.  A lot of young players do this (see David Wright, Jose Reyes).  Instead of making less in arbitration every year, you can get a ton of money guaranteed in exchange for giving up some of your free agent years.  
"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 12:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

not that I am aware of
I asked about free agents and you brought up pujols's contract( which you said wasnt a free agent contract) I was simply just pointing out how far from free agency he was.
"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 4:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I was joking
You were educating me on something that I knew all about. I thought you were calling me a baseball rookie.  Haha
Still, though, that contract looks pretty darn good right now with the 2nd best hitter in the game getting 27 million a year or whatever it was and the best hitter only getting 15 million a year.

by UncleBuck44 on Nov 24, 2007 4:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

well thats a whole other argument
Probably not one coming off the particular 2007 seasons pujols and arod had.

However, I agree pujols is the better hitter, but arod has the superior all around game.

While pujols is a gold glove caliber 1st baseman, thats the lowest postion on the defensive spectrum, i guess arod is not much further along at 3rd base, but he also was a gold glove SS, probably isnt anymore.  Anyways thats in the past, but I think at the same point in their careers arod was a better all around ball player (hitter, power, defense, baserunning, basestealing).  

But as far as pure hitting ability.. man is pujols impressive, i still cant believe he almost out homered his strikeouts a few years ago.. WOW.

As far as your point, yeah, the cardinals were very smart, signing him to a long term deal when it was in his best interest to sign such a deal.  For pujols he got 3 years of arb significantly higher salary then arb would've gotten him for giving away 4 years of his free agency (in his prime).  Very smart move by the cards.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 6:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Pujols
Yeah I just said Pujols was the best hitter in the game, not best player.  You look at the season averages, its not even close.  Pujols has been the more consistent top hitter.  A-Rod sometimes has those .290 seasons.  Pujols always hits around .330 which is unbelievable.  And the strikeout numbers are amazing.  He's never K'ed over 100 times in a season.

by UncleBuck44 on Nov 25, 2007 12:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow
I totally disagree with just about all of that.

Let's say the Reds had Cordero last year.  Do you really think he would have made a 13-win difference?  Because that was the separation between the Reds and Chicago (with 3 teams in between).

Oh, and I never said anything about spending $18M on a hitter, but of course a position player plays everyday (both at the plate and in the field), while a reliever doesn't.

by Yakker on Nov 24, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

what I mean by contention
is being a respectable distance out of a playoff spot where games in sept are still meaningful ... No I don beleve cordero directly will have more than a 5-6 game difference, however when u move weathers down to another spot and the other guys down as well collectively it should add a few more wins.
"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 4:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Possibly
The Reds blew a lot of games this past year when they had the lead.  
With Cordero pitching the 9th inning, Weathers can now move to the 8th inning to set up a very good 8th-9th inning relief duo that will close out a lot of good 7 inning games pitched by Harang and Arroyo.
A lot of the games blown by the Reds bullpen last year were blown in the 7th-8th innings not just the 9th inning.  Jared Burton now becomes the 7th inning guy and the John Coutlanguses in the pen won't be pitching as much in the later innings after Harang pitched 7 innings and left with a 2-1 lead.

All I know is that this was a good move for Cincinnati if they are willing to spend a lot of money this winter.  
Winning teams need good bullpens.

by UncleBuck44 on Nov 24, 2007 4:36 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Cheap Relievers
I'm in full agreement that guys can come out of nowhere to become cheap relievers. Obviously there is less risk with Cordero. As far as spending their money elsewhere, please, show me a player that's as good as Cordero available for the money? Cordero is similar in value to Torii Hunter (ok maybe a little worse), and Hunter got 6/90! Carlos Silva is not nearly as valuable and he'll get a similar deal.

The Reds do have an in house option that I like a lot as a reliever, and that's Homer Bailey. The problem is, he's got (arguably) more value in the rotation. Even with this signing, I might be inclined to use Bailey a late inning long fireman type.

So, the issue for me is, do the Reds honestly think that Cordero is the last piece of the puzzle that's going to put this team into contention in the NL Central?

Well, they were already in contention. This does improve thier chances, significantly. They go from ~10% chance to ~20% with this one move.

Frankly, Arroyo at #2 is not my idea of a playoff caliber team either.

The key here is, if the Reds win the division, Arroyo is likely their third best starter, maybe 4th.

they really can't count on anyone from the farm to help them win a pennant.

Um, Jay Bruce says hello. So do Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Matt Maloney, and Joey Votto. The reason the Reds are contenders is because they have so many high profile players ready to contribute. Even though their projected win total is only going to be ~78-80, they've got a ton of volatility that wins them a weak divison quite a bit.

by rwperu34 on Nov 24, 2007 10:53 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

It may
have been a weak division in recent history, but that can change basically overnight.  Look how much better the Brewers are and, look how fast the Cubs turned things around.  St. Louis and Houston had off years last year, but I think at least one of them (probably St. Louis) will be at least a .500 team 2 of the next 3 years.  The Brewers and Cubs alone make it a competitive division - the Reds improving will make it even more so.  Add a 4th team in the Cards (who I don't expect to lie down and be satified with finishing 3rd/4th) and you have a pretty decent division in 2008 and beyond.

Prior to now, it had been a three-headed division for a few years.  Houston and St. Louis both made appearances in the Series with St. Louis winning it once.  There have also been a few years they were the division from which the wildcard team came from recently.

It hasn't been the strongest division the last few years, but going forward, the NL Central looks to be pretty healthy.  I hate this deal for the Reds.  Terrible allocation of resources - on top of hiring Baker to boot, they're not making it any easier on themselves.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 24, 2007 11:19 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

this is sort of true
Things can change pretty quickly, especially in the NL.  

But don't mistake a world series appearance or victory for the division  being so great.  If it weren't for the weak NL central, the cardinals wouldn't have even been allowed into the playoffs.  

They had the fewest wins of any world series team in history of baseball.

Looking towards next year, the only team that looks to have the potential to run away with the division is the cubs, and I just dont see that happening.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 12:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

WS appearance
was only one/part of my point.  Sending 2 teams to the playoffs says quite a bit more and the NL Central has done that 3 times the last 6 years.
Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 24, 2007 1:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

NL Central
Part of the reason the NL central got two teams in in the past is because it was a two headed monster with two very good teams (St. Louis and Houston) and four patsies. There aren't two good teams in the NL central, and in fact I'd go as far as to say there are zero. The winner of this division is going to be the team that is on the right side of variance, and it could be any team this year, including the Pirates.

As for Milwaukee getting better, I just don't see it. They just lost their best reliever to a division rival with no real means to replace him.

by rwperu34 on Nov 24, 2007 1:57 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Check your facts man.
Because now yer just talkin' out yer bum.

2001 NL Central sent 2 teams - 3rd place team had 88 wins.

2003 - 3 85+ win teams.

2004 - sent 2 teams to playoffs - 3rd place had 89 wins.  Best combined 3 team total in all of baseball.

2006 3 80+ win teams, only division in NL to do that.

If anything, the division that everyone commonly refers to as the best in baseball, the AL East, is guilty of being strictly a two-headed monster.

If you don't/can't see Milwaukee as getting better, it's because you just don't want to.  They were a 56 win club just a few years ago.  A few things go right for them, they are a 90-95 win team as early as next year.  Who cares if they ;lost their "best reliever" - closer is so over-rated.  They'll be fine w/o him - definately be better off w/o spending that much to keep him and putting towards other areas.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 24, 2007 2:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

LOL nice way to adjust your time frame
by 3 of last 6 years you mean 0 times since 2004?

Seriously that's not a very convincing argument.

I agree with you that things could change quickly but I dont see it happening.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 4:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No, no, no...
His thing was "Part of the reason the NL central got two teams in in the past is because it was a two headed monster with two very good teams (St. Louis and Houston) and four patsies."

If you look at the facts, that isn't the case at all.  It has nothing to do with adjusting a time frame.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 24, 2007 7:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Splain Please
Just how is Milwaukee going to get better in 2008?

Closer is overrated, guys who whiff over a guy an inning with good control and don't give up bombs are not overrated. There's a big difference between "closer" and "bullpen ace".

by rwperu34 on Nov 24, 2007 5:33 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Splainin'
Like I said, if you can't see it, it's just because you don't want to or you're too deep into this arguement you can't admit you were wrong to begin with.  

What... Braun/Fielder/Gallardo, etc. all had career years last year and it's all downhill from here?  They have a young talent base that is only get to get better.  If Rickie Weeks can stay healthy, look out, it will be even beter.  Gallardo is only going to get better.  Corey Hart looks to be in the midst of a breakout.

I'm not disputing Cordero being a good closer.  Even so, whoop-dee-do.  They lost a closer to FA, it's not the end of the world by any stretch.    

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 24, 2007 7:06 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Let me get this straight....
You expect Braun and Fielder to post 1.000+ OPS for 2008? I haven't looked at Fielder, but Braun was extremely lucky last year. His luck adjusted line was .293/.342/.604, and that's assuming he can mantain his power. A more realistic projection for Braun, you know, taking into account all the information and not just 450 2008 PA, is .283/.338/.565. That's a far cry from what he gave them this year and more than offsets the bad luck Weeks had. Without looking, I'd assume Fielder is due for some regression as well.

Let's not forget that they managed to sign about the only guy in the world that's a downgrade from Johnny Estrada. Not only that, they took him away from a division rival!! Corey Hart is not in the midst of a breakout, he had his breakout. He might repeat his 2007, but his projection will not be that high.

On the pitching front, getting another 70 innings out of Gallardo will be nice, if he can stay healthy with that workload. Last year was his career high at 180, and he made it, but lets not act like there's not a significant injury risk there. Based on that and Dave Bush, I'll concede that the starting pitching will be better. The bully was pretty good last year, but looks pretty mediocre now that Cordero is gone. It will definitely wipe out some of the gain from the starters.

Let's summarize;

Offense, while the players might improve their skill, there is no way they score as many runs in 2008 as they did in 2007. Fielder, Braun, and Hardy will all have an expectation significantly lower than what they produced.

Starting pitching-Improves with Bush not getting as unlucky and getting 70 extra innings from Gallardo.

Relief pitching-Just got a lot worse, although they can lessen the damage if they pick up the right guy.

Overall, this team is not as good as they performed last year, and last year they performed like an 83.5 win team. The Brew Crew's expectation for 2007 is a measly 83-84 wins, which leaves them well withing striking distance of a 78-80 win Reds team.

by rwperu34 on Nov 24, 2007 8:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Disagree
Braun will get another 125-150 AB's.  Even if the rates dip a bit, those extra AB's should outweigh that.  

Fielder is not at the height of his batting skills yet, sorry regression is pretty unlikely after his second full season at age 23, and you know what they say about assuming.  

I think Hart is full-well capable of showing marked improvement.  He was 25 last year, not 30.  He's still 2-3 seasons away from his age 27 and 28 seasons, which generally are more productive than age 25 seasons.   He's just starting to put it all together and he is another who should see a few more AB's next year.  It took him a while to get in there everyday last year - I look forward to seeing what he can do given consistant AB's over an entire year.

Cordero was not the make-or-break cog of this team.  Sure, he was a great closer for them last year, but a closers role in the overall scheme of contributing to wins is vastly over-rated.  Milwaukee will be fine without him.  

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagee and re-visit this when things have played out.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 25, 2007 8:39 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No
"Well, they were already in contention. This does improve thier chances, significantly. They go from ~10% chance to ~20% with this one move."

How does adding Cordero make them 13-wins better?  I'm sorry, I just don't see that.  And that, of course, assumes everyone else in the division stands still.

"Um, Jay Bruce says hello. So do Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Matt Maloney, and Joey Votto."

And I say "Hello" right back.  And remind them how inconsistent young players are.  Oh, and as for Bailey, Cueto, and Maloney, guess who else says hello?  Dusty the Butcher.

by Yakker on Nov 24, 2007 4:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Variance
Well, there's this little thing called variance, so even if the Cubs were truly an 85 win team and the Reds were truly a 72 win team, the Reds would win the division some % of the time. In reality, the Reds are a 78 win team in 2008 and the best team in this division is no more than 84. Top that off with the volatility the Reds have due to their young guys, who all have serious ceilings, and the Reds are in 20% of the time.

by rwperu34 on Nov 24, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

why?
How does adding Cordero make them 13-wins better?  I'm sorry, I just don't see that.

Why does it have to make them 13 wins better? Why can't a signing make them 3 or 4 wins better? And maybe a trade add a few more. And maturing of some rookies add a win or two. And maybe some luck adding a couple as it does come down to a bit of luck unless you are Boston or NY.

If you hack deals because they don't put you over the hump on their own then by definition you'd almost never make any deals or signings.

by pedrophile on Nov 24, 2007 6:22 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well i doubt the signing alone directly
Causes a 13 game difference.

I guess their a few factors mentioned above.

1)I would say cordero himself brings about 5 wins. (i am saying this because Weathers had 11 win shares, which is almost 4 wins, and hes not as good as cordero).  

2)Cordero allows everyone else in the bullpen to move down an inning in their roles.  A good chunk of the reds games were lost in the middle innings. So that prob. To me this is probably another 4 wins.

  1. Arroyo was awful in may/june, but was pretty close to his previous levels the other 4 months, i would expect him to be better than he was. He had 21 win shares in 2006 and 11 last year.  thats 7 wins compared to just under 4.  So i would expect arroyo to be about 2-3 games better next year.
  2. Bailey should be better than the 30+ starts they got out of their 5th starters. That right there is worth another 2-3 wins.  
  3.  Bruce, Votto, a full season of hamilton shoudl help offset the likely lesser output of griffey.  
So right there their pitching staff has a legit shot of improving the team 12-14 games (if things go how one would expect).  

Obviously I am making quite a few assumptions here, and i would probably pick the reds to finish 3rd or 4th in the division next year behind the cubs, brewers and cardinals probably finishing ahead of them.  

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 6:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

almost forgot
Also the brewers lost linebrink and cordero, cordero brings with him his 4-5 wins from mil. to cincy, and the brewers might have to arrange things another way which could weaken their pen (inverse of what the reds are doing), so that could also swing some victories their way.
"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Nov 24, 2007 6:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

True
There's absolutely no need to add all 13 wins in one move.  In fact, short of signing A-Rod, that's probably darn near impossible.

To me, however, as I said above, signing a $40M+ closer is the last thing you should do for a team that's not contending.  In response, others have said that this Reds team, with Cordero, will not only contend but be a favorite in the NL Central.  I think that's nuts, but that's fine.  I'm not gonna convince them and they're not gonna convince me.

Bottom line, however, is that I would have spent this $40M+ somewhere other than on Coco.

by Yakker on Nov 25, 2007 12:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Rose-colored glasses, maybe
What's going to change in 2008?  The back end of the rotation is still weak.  (Frankly, Arroyo at #2 is not my idea of a playoff caliber team either.)  They're still waiting for Encarnacion to play to his potential in the field and at the plate, they're still running Hatteberg out there at 1B, and they really can't count on anyone from the farm to help them win a pennant.  Plus, Griffey and Dunn are still eating up way too much of the payroll, and neither can be traded easily this offseason (Junior has full 10-5 rights, and Dunn's got a no trade through June 15th).

I think the idea is that Bailey steps up to become the #2 behind Harang, with Arroyo as an excellent #3.  Belisle's 88ERA+ is uninspiring, but his peripherals were much stronger.  In fact his season was almost identical to Harang's 2004.  I think they're expecting a step up from him.  Maloney or Cueto will be fine in the #5 slot.

Yeah, Encarnacion is mostly potential at this point.  It's worth noting that while Edwin's stats don't look like anything special, he was hitting brutally in April/May, got demoted to AAA, and came back looking like a different hitter.  His OPS's in August and September were .908 and .969.

Votto went all .321/.360/.548 in his cup of coffee.  They picked up Hatteberg's option because it was cheap, but it's Votto's time.  Of course, with Dusty Baker as the manager, maybe that's wishful thinking on my part.

They have 4 of the top 20 prospects in baseball.  Two will be in Cincy to start the season, two have already had success at AAA.  I'd call that solid reserves from the farm.

Dunn's a bargain at $13mil for the production he gave you last year.  Griff's fine at $12.5mil as long as he's healthy, and you can call up Bruce to start whenever he's not.

Don't get me wrong, they absolutely overpaid for a position that I don't think is all that important.  But with Milton off the books this year, Griffey and Dunn off next year, a whole bunch of young, cheap talent not yet in arbitration (Phillips and Hamilton in addition to the aforementioned prospects), and their top 2 starters cost-controlled through 2011, I think it was an overpay they could afford to make.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Nov 24, 2007 11:00 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

Fair enough
I think you're pretty reasonable in your view.  

Although I think if pushed (or maybe if you took off the rose-colored glasses and got contacts instead, LOL), you'd agree that it's a lot to expect Bailey to step in and be a solid #2 in 2008.  It's aggressive, to say the least, to ask a 22-year old who's got good stuff but has not demonstrated command of the strike zone (yet) to handle that level of pressure.  But you're correct that this playoff push will require Bailey to do just that.

Similarly, I think it's pretty optimistic to expect both Votto and Bruce to contribute in 2008.

We agree that Cincy has much bigger problems than closer, but if you're going to overspend, Cordero's fine (though there are at least 5-8 other closers in the majors I'd rather have for that money, all things being equal).  I'm just not sure there's ever a time when you have to overspend.

by Yakker on Nov 24, 2007 4:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Cordero
I don't think it's a very good contract, because the only relievers who should get that kind of money are 1) significantly better than Cordero (think the Rivera/K-Rod/Nathan class of closers)
  1. significantly younger than Cordero (30 and under, for me to limit the chance of their decline during the course of the contract)
  2. Have been at that elite level longer than Cordero (he's basically there just in 2007).  Let's put it this way : I'm not ready/willing to give that contract to an FA JJ Putz or Jon Papelbon till they do it for another year and prove they can hold up long term to the punishment of closing.  I realize this means that they are also one year closer to the inevitable breakdown, but somehow I think it means that breakdown is still further away than it would be for some run of the mill closer.
The Cordero signing looks alot like the Wagner signing in terms of where Cordero is in his career, and that's not necessarily a good thing.  I'd be remiss if I was on the hook for his age-36 season, just as I am for Wagner.  The decline is inevitable, and sadly, it'll likely start sooner than later.

All that having been said, and now being put aside, I really do like the addition of Cordero,the player, to the Cincinatti Reds.  While it is fashionable, and sensible, to go to the scrap pile to find your relievers, sometimes a team does need to spend to insure that they will get the part that they need, and I think this is one of those cases.  Cordero, for all his faults, is a very good reliever and will do a very good job in addressing the Reds primary weakness.  They weaken a better team in their own division while theoretically strengthening their achilles heel.  The Reds had the WORST save % in baseball (an abysmal 54.8%), and this should go a long way towards ameliorating that by lengthening the pen. It will also bring some zeal to the clubhouse and probably sell a few extra tickets.

Much like the Dusty Baker signing, this represents a likely upgrade from what the Reds would have had in 2008.  I don't like the bang-for-the-buck aspect of the move, but if Bob Castelinni wants to win now, or at least give the appearance that he's trying to do so, this is definitely a step in that direction.    

by GuyinNY on Nov 24, 2007 12:35 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

one thing I noticed
You consider Rivera in a higher class than Putz. And that is crazy. Rivera just isn't that special any more. Putz is.

by pedrophile on Nov 24, 2007 1:07 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

+1
Actually, I thought about this as I was writing it, and I was on the fence.  Rivera's periphs are still top notch, even though his ERA wasn't and his stuff is clearly diminished, which is something that matters a great deal in his case. So, I can buy the Rivera-isn't-amazing anymore argument, but I personally still consider him a top 5 closer (behind Paps, K-Rod, and Nathan.  I get the feeling I'm forgetting someone).  

 I do consider Rivera in a higher class than Putz, tho.  Putz has really only been amazing the last two seasons, and I like a three year trend.  It's the same reason I'd wait on Papelbon.  Also, looking at his stats, he's older than I thought, so I guess he doesn't meet the 30-and under requirement.  Frankly, Rivera doesn't either, and so I wouldn't give him a mega deal either.  Though, I probably would have made an exception for 31 year old Mariano Rivera.  Or 32, or 33 or anything prior to this season.    

Yes, Rivera is older than Putz and is likely beginning his decline.  Yes, the Yankees contract with Rivera is ludicrous.  But Rivera remains a top 5 closer, and I'm willing to give him some leeway because he's just such a phenomenal athlete. His peripherals remain excellent, as I mentioned earlier, and his track record is basically impeccable.  I understand every player gets older, but Rivera still strikes me as an excellent relief pitcher and closer.  Do I consider him better than Putz in 2007?  No, I don't.   But I do consider Rivera to be the greatest closer of all time, and to still be in possession of the vast majority of skills which earned him that distinction.

I don't like the Cordero contract because I don't see him as being on par with those very top closers in baseball, as well as his age, and the fact that he hasn't had at least 3 such monster seasons while remaining healthy.  I do think he's a very good fit for the Reds, salary aside.  Regarding Rivera and Putz, I don't like the age on either, but I'm more willing to give an allowance to Rivera because of his incredible track record (rivaled in the regular season only by Trevor Hoffman).  Should current trends continue, Putz will be undeniably better than Rivera a year from now.  But, until then, I just want to see Putz be great one more time, and see Rivera fail to do that one more time.  Without that, it's still in the realm of fluke, and I'll take the surest thing in baseball history.

P.S. I happen to think next season will be a slight rebound from Rivera in terms of ERA and final counting stats (more innings and saves and the like) while his periphs continue to nudge downward.  And I happen to think Putz, barring injury - which is what I'm really afraid of when I say I like to see sustained success in a closer - comes very close to, but does not replicate his current levels of performance.  So, yeah.

by GuyinNY on Nov 24, 2007 1:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

statistically I would agree
but watching Putz is another story. BTW his first couple of years are not so relevant as he added a pitch that changed him as a pitcher.

Rivera is getting paid because of his history and it's the Yankees. He's solid but I wouldn't put him top 5. Then again he's a pretty safe bet.

As far as the underlying numbers being the same - I would have to disagree. He had the worst hit/9 in his career (as a reliever that is). It could have been fluky, we'll see.

by pedrophile on Nov 24, 2007 2:37 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

hrmm...
I didn't know about Putz's adding a new pitch.  That does change things, but I'd still like to see one more year out of him.  Re.Rivera, I did consider his  high h/9, but I'm willing to call it a fluke, despite the fact that this was actually the BEST Yankee defense he's pitched in front of in quite some time.  

Again, I really wouldn't be surprised to see current trends hold, but since we're talking about the here and now, I'm still going to take Rivera.  

P.S. My top 5 closers in baseball are (as of right this exact minute, and NOT based on who I would give a contract to)...

  1. Nathan
  2. Papelbon
t-3) Putz and Rivera (up until this past season, Rivera was an easy no.1, and I'm still very tempted to put him over Putz.  Yes, Putz was better last season, but again, I have a hard time ignoring Rivera's track record and I won't be foolish enough to count him out again till he proves he's done.)
5) K-Rod

by GuyinNY on Nov 24, 2007 2:54 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Putz
I'd second the comments about watching Putz pitch.  He's so dominant it's scary.  He reminds me a bit of Gagne during his Los Angeles heydays.

He comes in and just absolutely shuts it down.

by Yakker on Nov 24, 2007 4:44 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

+1
I believe that as far as I'd consider them for a contract, Rivera is in another class than Putz.  This is primarily due to track record  As far as they're present talent levels, I consider them in the same top-5 class of reliever.  

And I think both are more the kind of pitcher Cinci should be getting for their money.

by GuyinNY on Nov 24, 2007 2:04 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

In a vacuum
In a vacuum, this deal is bad. However, for the Reds I like it. For starters, the bullpen is now greatly improved. Weathers should be a fine set-up man and Cordero a good closer. As a result, I would rate the bullpen as average or slightly below.
      I know it can be very dissapointing for a young pitcher (ie. Cueto or Bailey) to pitch a great game and then lose on a blown save. Also, a good bullpen will (hopefully) allow Baker to make quicker pulls of their starters
    Finally, I do believe that Cordero could be the piece that allows them to make the playoffs as they (along with the Brewers) are now the favorite for the division. Was it an overpay? Yes. But if it is the reason they make the playoffs it will be worth it.

by wir963 on Nov 24, 2007 4:32 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Really?
Signing Cordero makes the Reds (along with the Brewers) the favorites for the division?

Wow, I really don't see that.  Chicago won significantly more games last year, has stars at multiple positions, spends about twice as much money, and (arguably) has a better starting rotation.  Oh, and St. Louis has the best hitter in the league and some d*mn fine pitching as well set up for 2008.

by Yakker on Nov 24, 2007 4:47 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed
Start posting on Minor League Ball »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Pose_small
SHS 'spect list continued....101-201
Hu_080227mag_uptonscover_small
daveh's top 111 prospects for 2010
Pose_small
SHS' 2010 top 100 prospects in MiLB
Robin_small
Early Prediction of BA's Top 100

Recent FanPosts

N16115505_31581383_8646_small
Rising Stars Chat
Small
Dexter Fowler and UZR
Small
Teahen to the White Sox....
Planetterror_small
Stephen Strasburg is out of the AFL Rising Stars Game
N16115505_31581383_8646_small
Twins Acquire J.J. Hardy For Carlos Gomez
Small
BA NYM TOP 10
Batmanbaseball_small
Timmy Lincecum likes weed.....
Small
Lester or Votto
Kurtz_small
Hermida Traded to Red Sox
Small
Community Prospect List - Reds

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Carew_small John Sickels


Site Meter