Are the Reds Backing Out ?

[El Gordo]

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.

In thinking about Cinci's situation, I think it is wise not to trade for Bedard and rather hope that Cuetto and Bailey wll do enough to make up for not aquiring him. They most likely won't contend this season but their immediate futur looks very bright with Cuetto Bailey Votto and Bruce.

[Sports Guy]

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.

The bottom line is Cinci shouldn't even really be in on Bedard but they are and if they are, they need to be willing to pay what it takes...If not, just pull out of the sweepstakes.

[RShack]

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.

Excellent point. Some folks here are scared to keep him because he might get hurt, yet think some other team should pay through the nose.

If you're one of the Somebodies who are so scared of him getting hurt, then why oh why do you think some other team should hand over their farm for him? If he's a super-injury-risk for the O's (which I don't believe, but I know some do), then how come he's not a super-injury-risk for whoever you want AM to trade him to?

[Sports Guy]

Excellent point. Some folks here are scared to keep him because he might get hurt, yet think some other team should pay through the nose.

The 2 situations are totally different...We feel we should trade him, not because he may get hurt but because his value is at its highest point and we have many holes to fill.

Now, one of the reasons he should be dealt now is because of the injury factor.

As for the Reds side of it, they are seemingly trading for him because they think they can contend with him...If they believe that, then they need to pony up the talent to get him.

If you're one of the Somebodies who are so scared of him getting hurt, then why oh why do you think some other team should hand over their farm for him? If he's a super-injury-risk for the O's (which I don't believe, but I know some do), then how come he's not a super-injury-risk for whoever you want AM to trade him to?

The risk is different for a contender vs a non contender.

[clapdiddy]

Excellent point. Some folks here are scared to keep him because he might get hurt, yet think some other team should pay through the nose.

If you're one of the Somebodies who are so scared of him getting hurt, then why oh why do you think some other team should hand over their farm for him? If he's a super-injury-risk for the O's (which I don't believe, but I know some do), then how come he's not a super-injury-risk for whoever you want AM to trade him to?

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. If this was the case, then trading for pitching would NEVER get done because there's always fear of an injury for a pitcher.

It would hurt the Orioles more than most teams if Bedard gets hurt because he's one of the few chips we have that could bring something of value to this moribund franchise.

[section18]

Staying on the topic.......Are the Reds backing out? We'll find out soon. Neither Krivsky or Bavasi are amateurs and they know who has inquired about Bedard. The Dodgers, Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Cubs, Rangers and Bluejays in addition to both of them. Are those GM's uninformed? Do they overvalue players and make dumb trades? As a rule they are pretty shrewd operators and keep their teams on top or in playoff contention most of the time (excluding the Rangers).

I have mentioned several times that I think Seattle will come through because they have more money to throw around and it appears they can give us a nice package. The Mets should still be in the picture and they have plenty to offer but their pitching isn't as good as Seattles or the Reds in my opinion. I would not rule out any of the teams I mentioned and I wouldn't rule out Arizona even though they just got Haren. They have several nice position players we could use immediately.

The newspapers and fans are not going to make or break the Bedard or Roberts trades which are the keys to our future and once they are done then we can start looking for specific players for any remaining holes we need to plug. This is exciting for me and I'm sure everyone else. I have debated whether I renew my season tickets this year which cost about $2300. but AM has me enthused more than I've been in a long time.

We are already better in my opinion just with the Tejada trade. We have a new starting leftfielder that is lefthanded with some power that may surprise some hitting in Oriole Park which is friendlier than hitting was in Houston and I think two of the pitchers will make our roster with Patton starting.

Now if we can unload Melvin and Ramon we can start fresh and improve some of our attitude and hustle issues. Gibbons, Payton and Huff will happen soon enough. I will be shocked if any of the last three are on this team on Opening Day. Can you hear the chants when Huff comes to bat....Horse...., Horse....No way will AM let this happen

[66-70-83-??]

Excellent point. Some folks here are scared to keep him because he might get hurt, yet think some other team should pay through the nose.

If you're one of the Somebodies who are so scared of him getting hurt, then why oh why do you think some other team should hand over their farm for him? If he's a super-injury-risk for the O's (which I don't believe, but I know some do), then how come he's not a super-injury-risk for whoever you want AM to trade him to?

Because EB is our biggest trading chip. Trading him is a must for the rebuilding project.

You can't trade a player who is hurt.

Depending upon the severity of his injury- it could really make his value vanish.

[mason]

Although I really love the proposed Bailey/Votto/Stubbs deal from the Reds, I really am starting to feel that the most likely Bedard deal will be with Seattle. They actually truly need Bedard to keep up with Angels, and they've invested too much already for 2008 to be content with half-assing it. Cincy, on the other hand would really be in better postition by just hanging on to all of their blue chippers and planning to really compete in '09. Plus, Bavasi is no genius. I feel fairly confident we can get a strong haul from him.

[Sports Guy]

I wonder if the Mets could get back into this?

[clapdiddy]

I wonder if the Mets could get back into this?

Man...I'm hoping some other teams do get into this. I think the Mets could be players in all this, but ANY team outside of Seattle and Cincy would be nice to hear about now.

[rolliefingers]

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.

Your point is well-made, but our fear that Bedard might get injured has little to do with him and a lot to do with how beaten down we are after 10 years of losing. It'd be just our luck if we held out until July and he gets injured in June.

And like SG said, the calculus is different for a contender vs. a non-contender. If you trade Cueto, Votto and 2 lesser prospects for Bedard, you're instantly the favorite to win the division. If we DON'T trade Bedard, we're immediately cossing our fingers and hoping that nothing terrible happens. Different scenarios.

None of us expect Bedard to get injured for CIN, but we absolutely expect him to get injured for us. It's not entirely logical, but that's what 10 years of torture does to you.

[66-70-83-??]

Your point is well-made, but our fear that Bedard might get injured has little to do with him and a lot to do with how beaten down we are after 10 years of losing. It'd be just our luck if we held out until July and he gets injured in June.

And like SG said, the calculus is different for a contender vs. a non-contender. If you trade Cueto, Votto and 2 lesser prospects for Bedard, you're instantly the favorite to win the division. If we DON'T trade Bedard, we're immediately cossing our fingers and hoping that nothing terrible happens. Different scenarios.

None of us expect Bedard to get injured for CIN, but we absolutely expect him to get injured for us. It's not entirely logical, but that's what 10 years of torture does to you.

Like Miguel Tejada last summer.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[rolliefingers]

Like Miguel Tejada last summer.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Well, yeah, although even a healthy Tejada would not have fetched anything close to what we can reasonably get for Bedard.

If we wait to trade Bedard, we're running the risk of setting our rebuilding process back for YEARS. Literally.

[Sports Guy]

Well, yeah, although even a healthy Tejada would not have fetched anything close to what we can reasonably get for Bedard.

If we wait to trade Bedard, we're running the risk of setting our rebuilding process back for YEARS. Literally.

True but it is a good point...Tejada hadn't missed a game in years...One HBP and he is out and we can't trade him.

Now you have Bedard, who has had injury issues and if you don't trade him, he is obviously a risk.

Now, how big of a risk? Who knows..Probably not as big as some on here want to make it out to be but any kind of risk is one we shouldn't be taking if the right deal is there.

[Pruke]

True but it is a good point...Tejada hadn't missed a game in years...One HBP and he is out and we can't trade him.

Now you have Bedard, who has had injury issues and if you don't trade him, he is obviouswly a risk.

Now, how of a risk? Who knows..Probably not as big as some on here want to make it out to be but any kind of risk is one we shouldn't be taking if the right deal is there.

100% with you. Given that we don't have any chips to barter with beyond Bedard and Roberts, moving them both before ST, IMO, is even more critical. We can't afford to miss the opportunity before us. However, if the offer is not much better than what we'd get if he walked in 2 years (draft picks), it's tough to argue with not keeping him on board for 2008.