trade deadline looming France, Lewis, and Haniger returning

[Juliooooo]

It was right after you tried disagreeing with me that Dipoto said he was going after a #2.

Dtrain already said he was responding to my statement that you were trying to refute, and he posted a quote supporting it. Then you go off about it not being a guarantee, which nobody ever claimed it was- before you interjected it.

Also I didn't say he wasn't going after one, he never said he was going to get one though. There is a difference. A big one, that isn't "just semantics."

Agreed, but you were the only one saying that anybody said he guaranteed he'd get a #2.

Nobody else did. That's what I mean you were arguing with yourself because you're the only one that introduced the idea that Dipoto guaranteed we'd get a #2, apparently based on other things you've read people say.

Dtrain clarified twice he was responding to what I said about "going after" one, but you kept pushing the argument that you introduced (that nobody else was even saying)- that being that Dipoto said he was going to get a #2.

Nobody said that but you. Then you started arguing about it for some reason.

All offseason people were saying that hey said they were going to add one. Also, how did Jerry "not follow through" with something he never said he was going to do in the first place? That makes no sense unless the implication was that he was going to add someone?

And I'm clarifying my point, or an I not allowed to do that. I said"Jerry never said he was going to add anyone". DT replied with a post that he thought contradicted that statement. Why is he able to clarify, and when I do I'm just "arguing"?

[ice99]

Sounds like the typical noncomprehension. Just like when someone asked about losing another year. He's got to argue ad nauseum.

[Donn Beach]

I took that statement to be about the players they have as much as about who they might be adding. He is saying they would be more interested in adding to the top of the rotation because they have young players to fill out the bottom of it. Again, it wasn't about signing a FA, it would have had to have been a trade which seems pretty iffy to predict. There wasn't a trade made you can point to that they missed out on at that point. Seems like a pretty pointless thing to say really. Does seem like he was just trying to generate some sort of excitement

[Juliooooo]

I took that statement to be about the players they have as much as about who they might be adding. He is saying they would be more interested in adding to the top of the rotation because they have young players to fill out the bottom of it. Again, it wasn't about signing a FA, it would have had to have been a trade which seems pretty iffy to predict. There wasn't a trade made you can point to that they missed out on at that point. Seems like a pretty pointless thing to say really. Does seem like he was just trying to generate some sort of excitement

I think he was just being open and honest. "If we add someone, it will be to the top of the rotation, but we are comfortable with Kirby/Brash etc, so we definitely won't add to the bottom of the rotation. " people took that as adding they were going to, or were likely to add a #2 guy, but that wasn't what he was saying.

After they traded Williamsen and Dunn, or seemed a bit too shallow of depth to me and I wanted them to add someone. Luckily they are healthy, because their depth right now looks pretty shallow.

[bpj]

The implication is- like Dipoto said- they were looking to focus their energy on adding a SP at the top of the rotation if possible. Going after one. Nobody said anything about guaranteeing they'd get one (except you).

Seems pretty simple-

He didn't come to an agreement with/for any -> Didn't add a #2 -> Didn't follow through on what they were going to focus their energy on accomplishing.

Sure, the reason could absolutely be that he didn't like the deals on the table, that's fine.

The result is we have a 100 ERA+ pitcher in the rotation instead of a 145 ERA+ #2 like Rodon.

If the cost was too high, so be it.

[Donn Beach]

.But if we can find a pitcher who has multi-function, a guy who has the ability to start who can make an impact in the bullpen, that is appealing to us, particularly if it brings a left-handed element to our to our staff because what we don’t want to do is when it’s time for George Kirby or Levi or Matt or Brandon to get their innings in the big leagues. we do want to give them that opportunity because we feel like the best team that we are building toward includes those guys. The more experience we give them, the better off we’re going to be.”

Here is the rest of the comment, now it's, if we can find a guy. It's also a left handed swing man, has the ability to impact both the BP and the starting rotation. Ahhh hello, Tyler Anderson? In any event they didn't do it

[Juliooooo]

The implication is- like Dipoto said- they were looking to focus their energy on adding a SP at the top of the rotation if possible. Going after one. Nobody said anything about guaranteeing they'd get one (except you).

Seems pretty simple-

He didn't come to an agreement with/for any -> Didn't add a #2 -> Didn't follow through on what they were going to focus their energy on accomplishing.

Sure, the reason could absolutely be that he didn't like the deals on the table, that's fine.

The result is we have a 100 ERA+ pitcher in the rotation instead of a 145 ERA+ #2 like Rodon.

If the cost was too high, so be it.

That's been my point the entire time. That's why I say he never said they WERE going to get someone, he said that's where they WOULD add someone IF they did add, and it wouldn't be at the bottom of the rotation. I'm sure they looked decided the cost was too high given how Confortable they were with Kirby/Brash. People might disagree with them, but that's what they said. They never"failed" to do anything and it wasn't that they "didn't follow through" with something they said they WERE going to do. I explain my point and I'm told "its just semantics" when that clearly isn't the case. It's a distinct difference, and the points I bolded in your post, is why I think the distinction is important. They gathered information and made a decision. Thankfully it's working out so far.

[Donn Beach]

Josh Bell 2.4 WAR
Our DH's -0.4 WAR

Net 2.8 WAR

Current record. 40-42
Record with Bell at DH 43-39. 1 game out of the WC.

Is that fWAR? He isn't putting the same WAR up as a DH. What's the current leaderboard of DHs? I can't find that stuff

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx? ... 2022-12-31

Okay, thanks...I was thinking they were three games under.

If you are going to deal in WAR as your resource, I don't see the DH as being an easy way to add wins, it's limit is pretty low. If you can pull 3 WAR out of the position you're doing good. I don't see the answer as having to sign a dh only guy. The sorts of guys you can really be confident in giving you premium WAR as a dh are few. I think it's more about having a productive lineup than finding a certain guy to do it. You invest in a DH, who's to say they don't under perform or end up on the DL like another winker or haniger.

I thought they had basically covered it when they got Winker. Fact is, if he was producing as was intended, Haniger and Lewis were in the lineup your dh is probably pretty well covered. That and how bad Toro and Frazier have been. That's where the adjustments need to be made, that gets you to your 2.5-3 WAR at the end of the day.

Terms of their negative WAR, I don't follow closely enough to know how much that's a function of utilizing the players at hand, why Toro gets so many at bats as a dh

[Juliooooo]

Is that fWAR? He isn't putting the same WAR up as a DH. What's the current leaderboard of DHs? I can't find that stuff

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx? ... 2022-12-31

Okay, thanks...I was thinking they were three games under.

If you are going to deal in WAR as your resource, I don't see the DH as being an easy way to add wins, it's limit is pretty low. If you can pull 3 WAR out of the position you're doing good. I don't see the answer as having to sign a dh only guy. The sorts of guys you can really be confident in giving you premium WAR as a dh are few. I think it's more about having a productive lineup than finding a certain guy to do it. You invest in a DH, who's to say they don't under perform or end up on the DL like another winker or haniger.

I thought they had basically covered it when they got Winker. Fact is, if he was producing as was intended, Haniger and Lewis were in the lineup your dh is probably pretty well covered. That and how bad Toro and Frazier have been. That's where the adjustments need to be made, that gets you to your 2.5-3 WAR at the end of the day.

Terms of their negative WAR, I don't follow closely enough to know how much that's a function of utilizing the players at hand, why Toro gets so many at bats as a dh

Toro was never intended as a DH, he was supposed to be a part time 2B and 3B. He is playing DH due to injuries to Lewis, Haniger, and Trammell plus Torrens and Kelenic disappointing. Of he was playing the position he was intended to, his WAR would probably be about 0.

[Pharmabro]

So, I am looking at the BP and the guys they have now are working.

The offense
C Cal has been clicking and even Luis was heating up a bit in June.
JRod, Winker, TAylor has been heating up
France !B
3B Saurez
SS JP
2B Moore has a 97 OPS+, Frazier has been slumping but if Santana is hitting well and you need a spot for Lewis Haniger why not play France as a 2B?

This brings me to pushing the biggest way to upgrade the team is by adding to the top of the rotation by trading Flexen as part of the package to get a Montas type (if not injured) but also the Reds guys Castillo or Mahle.

I really feel like when we have the top 4 guys going we're going to see a pretty good start. Flexen is game and is fine as a #5 but flip him for Castillo and switch from a 85-90 ERA+ guy to a 152 ERA+ guy who has a career 125 ERA+ and you get him for 1.5 years.

My package which was accepted by the trade calc thing is here but added to that is we also give them the #74 pick Comp Rd B pick which is eligible to trade.
Flexen, SToudt, Miller. (pitchers)
SS Arroyo
OF Deloach or MOntes or both
If both the M's lose by a couple million if 1 the Reds lose by a couple of million. But that does not include the #74 comp pick which I would put as something like a 5-10M dollar value.

I know people will disagree and think this or that. And it is true. DO the Reds Value a cheap pitcher who has proven to be at least a #5 and maybe a #3? Flexen
Do the Reds want Flexen and JK? JK 40.7M, + 4.7> 45.4M
OR
Something like Flex 4.7M, Hancock 6.6M, Ford 11.1M, Lewis 19M =41.4M ( I least like this one)

For the record, I would probably do about anything as long as the value was relatively close and benefitted the team. Like if we traded Cal as a 20M $ value as part of the package to get a SP? yes, creating holes to fill holes.

And yet I have heard a report on the broadcast that the M's have the #1 staff in baseball over the last 30-something game stretch.

M's rotation:
1. Castillo R 152 ERA+
2. Ray L 102 ERA+
3. GILBERT R 138 ERA+
4. Marco L 112 ERA+
5. Kirby R 99 ERA+
6. Flexen R 92 ERA+

And maybe I am keeping FLexen and doing a 6 man or something until Kirby reaches his innings limit if that is