Are the Reds Backing Out ?

[Fan4Life]

Yes, it is hard to make a deal but if one side is unreasonable(and it SEEMS that AM is), the deal never has a chance.

BTW, the being under contract for 2 more years stuff that you keep saying is silly.

The bottom line is 2 years isn't as long time when you are talking about value.

It is unlikely he resigns here and if he does, during the season or next offseason, he has to be signed for that much longer and for a lot more money.

If you wait to trade him, aside from the risks, it is likely his value will decrease.

So, while you keep(foolishly) saying people think he is only signed for 10 minutes, most people understand the urgency to get something done with

Bedard.

Considering we don't REALLY know what's been offered by whom,

Weren't you professing a Kemp/Kerhaw, LaRoche, Hu, Meloan type deal with the Dodgers? How can you see the Reds or Mariners offers anything close to that? Are you saying that you have over-valued Bedard and are ready to take less now?

[B-more]

We should also remember that the timing of things can be way off from when it is reported. Remember the Vlad negoiations? For the longest time, it wasnt reported that we upped our offer to Vlad and then later on it was reported we finally raised our offer. But in actuality we had raised our offer to him at least a month before.

These articles about us backing off of Bruce could be another example of the news just finally getting leaked out well after the fact. For all we know, the O's could have already backed out of demanding Bruce and have been trying to pry the deals we have been mentioning recently that have Cueto/Bailey + Votto + 2 guys.

[Dr. FLK]

Look, it's not up to just him. It's up to the other GM's too. That's the whole point of why it's hard. It's not like he runs down to the car dealer and wrangles his best deal, swapping a slightly used Mercedes for a few new Toyotas. If he feels like he's getting hosed on a deal, he's not gonna do it. He'd rather take his chances on keeping a great P and maybe getting a good deal later. Nothing wrong with that. He'd be a dope to jump on a deal that he thinks isn't a good one. Doesn't matter what we think, he's the guy who's facing the actual realities of this, not us. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have your opinion. You should have whatever opinion you like. But none of us know what the actual choices are that he's been facing. We just don't know.

Fact is, Bedard's under contract for 2 more years. People here are talking like that's the same thing as 10 minutes. The idea that either we trade him right now or else the future is doomed, I think that's just silly. IMO, looking at it like that is just panicking. I don't want AM being in a panic. IMO, what's mainly going on is that people are annoyed at AM because they wanted a trade for Christmas.

We sure don't. But, in the end, one of 2 things will happen. He'll get the job done, or he won't. I could care less if his job is hard. All GMs have to deal with these problems. Some improve their team, and some don't. He still has plenty of time, don't get me wrong. He doesn't need to get anything done before Xmas, New years, or even Valentine's Day. But, if he can't make this team better, the fact that his job is difficult doesn't make me feel sorry for him.

[Sports Guy]

There is NO way of knowing this.

No, there's not...But the Sun hinted that we wanted Kershaw AND Kemp and there was never any indication that we would have done a deal without either of those players(and Broxton) and the Dodgers could certainly have put together a great package without those 3 players in it.

[El Gordo]

Yes, it is hard to make a deal but if one side is unreasonable(and it SEEMS that AM is), the deal never has a chance.

BTW, the being under contract for 2 more years stuff that you keep saying is silly.

The bottom line is 2 years isn't as long time when you are talking about value.

It is unlikely he resigns here and if he does, during the season or next offseason, he has to be signed for that much longer and for a lot more money.

If you wait to trade him, aside from the risks, it is likely his value will decrease.

So, while you keep(foolishly) saying people think he is only signed for 10 minutes, most people understand the urgency to get something done with

Bedard.

You still think this, even though Belkast has said the deals have not been as they have been rumored to be? It seems to me, it's not about getting as much as possible for Bedard but getting what we need. Needs change. Right now we need as many top flight prospects as we can get. But next year at the deadline our needs could very well be percieved differently. If one or 2 of DCab, Loewen, Liz ,Olson ,Penn, or Gutherie step it up and Bedard stays healthy, all qiute possible, then our needs will be diferent. If we get what is expected from Murton and Scott and Epatt is an adequate 2B, then we need a young CF and and SS. We might be better able to get those with Bedard at the deadline or in the following off season becuase we are stronger in SP and offense is better. We tend to be thinking in absolutes like we have to trade Bedard now, or there is no way the club will be betetr next season, or improved enough for Bedard to extend , etc, etc. Absolutes limit creative thinking IMO.

[Fairfax Bird]

No, there's not...But the Sun hinted that we wanted Kershaw AND Kemp and there was never any indication that we would have done a deal without either of those players(and Broxton) and the Dodgers could certainly have put together a great package without those 3 players in it.

I agree that the Dodgers could have offered all sorts of things that would have been acceptable, however just because the Sun reported that we wanted both, doesn't mean that AM somehow screwed up by requiring too much.

We don't know how the these negotiations are going.

[Sports Guy]

I agree that the Dodgers could have offered all sorts of things that would have been acceptable, however just because the Sun reported that we wanted both, doesn't mean that AM somehow screwed up by requiring too much.

We don't know how the these negotiations are going.

All we can talk about is what is being reported.

Hell, maybe the Cardinals offered Pujols and Rasmus...I mean, let's have a discussion about a bunch of things that might have happened...That should go real far.

[Fairfax Bird]

All we can talk about is what is being reported.

Hell, maybe the Cardinals offered Pujols and Rasmus...I mean, let's have a discussion about a bunch of things that might have happened...That should go real far. :rolleyes:

What the hell does this mean?

You can talk about what is being reported all you want, doesn't mean that it is all correct. You take the information as the gospel and that is a mistake.

[Sports Guy]

What the hell does this mean?

You can talk about what is being reported all you want, doesn't mean that it is all correct. You take the information as the gospel and that is a mistake.

What does it mean?

It means you want to talk about things that we don't know about...So let's do it...Let's talk about a bunch of stuff we have no knowledge of.

I mean, that should be a good thread right because that is exactly what you are talking about here.

Sure, the things being said may not be accurate...Anyone would be foolish to deny that possibility.

However, it is what we have to go by right now and we hear national guys say they don't feel Bedard is really svailable because we are asking for too much.

So, combine all of that stuff with the lack of results and it is pretty reasonable to think AM isn't being reasonable.

[BaltimoreTerp]

What does it mean?

It means you want to talk about things that we don't know about...So let's do it...Let's talk about a bunch of stuff we have no knowledge of.

I mean, that should be a good thread right because that is exactly what you are talking about here.

Sure, the things being said may not be accurate...Anyone would be foolish to deny that possibility.

However, it is what we have to go by right now and we hear national guys say they don't feel Bedard is really svailable because we are asking for too much.

So, combine all of that stuff with the lack of results and it is pretty reasonable to think AM isn't being reasonable.

His point is to take that information at face value, and not assume that just because it is all we know it is all that can be taken into account.

How many people predicted the exact, or close to it, Tejada deal?

[Sports Guy]

His point is to take that information at face value, and not assume that just because it is all we know it is all that can be taken into account.

How many people predicted the exact, or close to it, Tejada deal?

I know what his point is...I just don't care.

I am discussing what we know and what is being said.

[Fairfax Bird]

What does it mean?

It means you want to talk about things that we don't know about...So let's do it...Let's talk about a bunch of stuff we have no knowledge of.

I mean, that should be a good thread right because that is exactly what you are talking about here.

Sure, the things being said may not be accurate...Anyone would be foolish to deny that possibility.

However, it is what we have to go by right now and we hear national guys say they don't feel Bedard is really svailable because we are asking for too much.

So, combine all of that stuff with the lack of results and it is pretty reasonable to think AM isn't being reasonable.

A classic SG response ... "sure, the things being said may not be accurate." That was my entire point. We don't know. Go ahead and assume the worst based on best possible information, even if that information is not accurate. Have a great holiday. I'm done posting until the New Year ... this is the second time I have said and this time I mean it ... starting now! (Kramer reference!).

[Fairfax Bird]

I know what his point is...I just don't care.

I am discussing what we know and what is being said.

What we think we know.

Starting Now.

[RShack]

We sure don't. But, in the end, one of 2 things will happen. He'll get the job done, or he won't. I could care less if his job is hard. All GMs have to deal with these problems. Some improve their team, and some don't. He still has plenty of time, don't get me wrong. He doesn't need to get anything done before Xmas, New years, or even Valentine's Day. But, if he can't make this team better, the fact that his job is difficult doesn't make me feel sorry for him.

Who's feeling sorry for him? Not me. He's making a ton of money, and if he pulls this off right, it's his ticket to the HOF. I don't feel sorry for him.

I agree with you 100% that it's "in the end" that matters. Bedard doesn't matter, except as one instrument for "in the end". To me, "in the end" means getting OK by '09, getting good by '10, and getting to the WS not too terribly long after that, and being a contender most years for a good while after that. All I'm saying is that we have some cry-baby Know-it-alls who are wetting their pants mainly because AM didn't give them a Bedard trade in time for Christmas. He gave them a Miggi trade, but evidently once a trade is done it doesn't count anymore, it's only the next not-done trade that matters. And if AM doesn't give them what they want trade-wise, when they want it, then all is doomed. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

[RedsManRick]

Just an observation, but it's interesting from an outsider's perspective to a single thread in which you don't want to keep him because of the fear that his value drops and yet insist on getting 2 MLB ready blue chippers and 2 good prospects.

Every fear you have about what might happen if you keep him, the other team is going to have in acquiring him. The questions about health/durability. That he's peaking at an older age than most aces. That there are only 2 years on his contract. What if the Reds do give up Cueto, Votto, Maloney, and Stubbs and then Bedard gets injured? Everybody wants to maximize value and minimize risk, but that's going to happen from both sides.

I think when playing GM for our respective teams, many of us have atendency to assume the best case sceario for our opponents and the worst case scenarios for ourselves. We then decide what's fair based on those possibilities, sometimes not giving enough weight to the inverse. For example, well since Bedard would be the Reds ace for two years and lead them to the playoffs (if not the WS!), we should get 2 above average sure thing major leagers and 2 guys who should pan out. However, the Reds are thinking, Bedard might get hurt or not resign, and they want us to give up a future ace, an all-star 1B, a future Mike Cameron, and a mid-rotation starters? That's NUTS!

Obviously those are extremes, but in some cases it's closer to reality than we want to admit.