SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 10, 2016 14:05:46 GMT -5
Bob Nightengale Verified account @bnightengale The #Reds have no intention of trading Joey Votto, Reds say, citing not only his obvious talent, but his clubhouse leadership. Go read the US today piece, that has detailed quotes from GM and let me know if you think it's that clear. I mean come on GMs say that stuff all the time. Again show me a quote from Owner and I will believe that. Danny Ainge said he wasn't trading Rondo in the offseason only to trade him at the deadline. No smart GM says he's trading a player, he loses all leverage. Your a smart guy that's followed sports forever, you know this!
|
|
|
Joey Votto
Nov 10, 2016 20:37:02 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 10, 2016 20:37:02 GMT -5
Are you still contemplating a unrealistic scenario in which the Owner of the Reds has already came out and said he wasn't trading Votto this off season? The articles I've seen are from the GM, not the owner. He said teams are calling, but he's not in negotiations and hasn't talked to Votto about waiving his no trade clause. He went on to say he likes Joey Votto teaching the young guys and they want to build around him. That to me is not a GM saying Votto isn't going to be traded. Sure sounds like a GM trying to get a better offer. I've also read a ton of reports listing Votto as a guy most likely to be traded. It just makes sense. What doesn't make sense is trying to build around a guy that is 33 years old when your years away from competing. Now if the owner came out and said we aren't trading Votto, I would take that seriously. A GM using the wording he used, sure sounds like he's trying to drive up the price. You know a GM saying we are trading a guy, will lose leverage. Lol read tweet above.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 10, 2016 23:45:48 GMT -5
The articles I've seen are from the GM, not the owner. He said teams are calling, but he's not in negotiations and hasn't talked to Votto about waiving his no trade clause. He went on to say he likes Joey Votto teaching the young guys and they want to build around him. That to me is not a GM saying Votto isn't going to be traded. Sure sounds like a GM trying to get a better offer. I've also read a ton of reports listing Votto as a guy most likely to be traded. It just makes sense. What doesn't make sense is trying to build around a guy that is 33 years old when your years away from competing. Now if the owner came out and said we aren't trading Votto, I would take that seriously. A GM using the wording he used, sure sounds like he's trying to drive up the price. You know a GM saying we are trading a guy, will lose leverage. Lol read tweet above. So where's the info that the Reds owner said Votto wasn't being traded like you claimed?? Oh yea there's a tweet so it has to be 100% true. A GM has never not told the truth to increase his leverage, never ever ever . SMH. It happens all the time, and I mean all the time.
|
|
|
Post by rookie13 on Nov 11, 2016 10:11:54 GMT -5
Not only that, but the tweet says they have "no intention." Which easily translates to, "We don't want to trade him, but we will if the offer is good enough."
|
|
|
Joey Votto
Jul 16, 2017 18:43:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jdb on Jul 16, 2017 18:43:35 GMT -5
I wonder if anything has changed on the Votto front since last offseason. I know it's been stated he doesn't want to leave but the chances of him winning in Cincy are slim and getting slimmer.
|
|
|
Joey Votto
Jul 16, 2017 23:45:57 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 16, 2017 23:45:57 GMT -5
I wonder if anything has changed on the Votto front since last offseason. I know it's been stated he doesn't want to leave but the chances of him winning in Cincy are slim and getting slimmer. The Sox can't trade for him to stay under the tax threshold this year, unless the Sox sent Hanley back. Either way this trade isn't happening.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 17, 2017 7:08:47 GMT -5
Yea I know he's a pipe dream especially mid season with that salary.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 17, 2017 16:17:16 GMT -5
Yea I know he's a pipe dream especially mid season with that salary. He is the one I wanted in the off season if they were to use assets instead of cash. I think his skill set ages well for DH duty, especially and could see him playing at a high level until he's 40.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Joey Votto
Jul 17, 2017 19:18:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Jul 17, 2017 19:18:46 GMT -5
Yea I know he's a pipe dream especially mid season with that salary. He is the one I wanted in the off season if they were to use assets instead of cash. I think his skill set ages well for DH duty, especially and could see him playing at a high level until he's 40. Still doesn't mean we have the farm to get him after sending Hanley over. I would think they'd demand Devers, who we literally need for 3B, so that wouldn't work. Then there's Groome and Chavis, which may not even be enough. It just seems like there'd be no way to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 20, 2017 19:58:48 GMT -5
He is the one I wanted in the off season if they were to use assets instead of cash. I think his skill set ages well for DH duty, especially and could see him playing at a high level until he's 40. Still doesn't mean we have the farm to get him after sending Hanley over. I would think they'd demand Devers, who we literally need for 3B, so that wouldn't work. Then there's Groome and Chavis, which may not even be enough. It just seems like there'd be no way to make it work. Nope. I think in the eyes of the rest of MLB there's Devers, a top 10 prospect in all of baseball, then a long drop to Groome, who is in the 80-100 range. Then bits and pieces that would be the 3rd or 4th guy in a 4-player deal for a blue chip player.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jul 21, 2017 13:47:19 GMT -5
I just don't see Votto costing that much. Unless the Reds eat money. Great player but he is the anti Sale. He is 33, almost 34 and has 6 years 157 million minimum left on deal if option is declined. I don't think he gets 6 years with an option on open market. Not at age 34. It could have made sense if they would have taken Sandoval. Most likely that's why Reds won't trade him. They can't get fair value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2017 14:42:33 GMT -5
It's probably more likely they trade for Miguel Cabrera than Votto.
I don't see the point in handicapping the team with another huge contract unless we just don't care how they fill out the starting rotation in 2020 when Porcello, Pomeranz and Sale are gone, plus Kimbrel and Xander. Maybe Groome will step in for one of those spots. But that $30+ million that they'd be paying for a 37 year old is gonna hurt eventually. The only possible way to add a top starter is to go the David Price route (overpaid free agent) or Chris Sale (trade large # of impact prospects which reduce the possibility of having a league minimum starter at a few positions). The payroll issues are going to come quick when they start. They won't be able to re-sign everyone they have now and they also aren't going to be able to replace them easily.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 21, 2017 16:15:04 GMT -5
I just don't see Votto costing that much. Unless the Reds eat money. Great player but he is the anti Sale. He is 33, almost 34 and has 6 years 157 million minimum left on deal if option is declined. I don't think he gets 6 years with an option on open market. Not at age 34. It could have made sense if they would have taken Sandoval. Most likely that's why Reds won't trade him. They can't get fair value. I think for Cinn. would be like the Yankees trading Derek Jeter in 2008, only a Derek Jeter who could hit and field his position. And hit with more power. And have higher OBP. He is the face of their franchise. They couldn't let that go for spare parts, even if the Sox ate all the money.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
|
Joey Votto
Jul 22, 2017 17:07:26 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nomar on Jul 22, 2017 17:07:26 GMT -5
It's probably more likely they trade for Miguel Cabrera than Votto. I don't see the point in handicapping the team with another huge contract unless we just don't care how they fill out the starting rotation in 2020 when Porcello, Pomeranz and Sale are gone, plus Kimbrel and Xander. Maybe Groome will step in for one of those spots. But that $30+ million that they'd be paying for a 37 year old is gonna hurt eventually. The only possible way to add a top starter is to go the David Price route (overpaid free agent) or Chris Sale (trade large # of impact prospects which reduce the possibility of having a league minimum starter at a few positions). The payroll issues are going to come quick when they start. They won't be able to re-sign everyone they have now and they also aren't going to be able to replace them easily. Agreed. Hopefully Flores and Diaz end up being big time propspects too, because as you said, sooner than we realize we're going to be giving out lots of big deals and we'll need another class of cost controlled, high end talent.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Jul 30, 2017 1:55:52 GMT -5
After the season is over, we need to make a run for vitro. It will hurt the farm system a bit, but we could put together a package to make this happen.
He provides some power, hits for average, plus provides a huge clubhouse presence. This is the guy we need to replace the leadership Ortiz brought to the clubhouse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2017 16:27:12 GMT -5
After Moreland is a free agent, the sox will need a first baseman, however, Votto would be expensive. We might be able to get him for all of:
Rick Porcello- Already have enough starters for next year Noe Ramirez- Out of options anyways Sam Travis- We wouldn't need him at first anymore Michael Chavis- Blocked by Devers, Holt, Lin, Marrero, etc. Trey Ball- Probably won't be more than a reliever in the majors, and the Sox already have those. Sandy Leon- Enough catchers for now.
|
|
|
Post by bnich on Aug 5, 2017 17:09:10 GMT -5
After Moreland is a free agent, the sox will need a first baseman, however, Votto would be expensive. We might be able to get him for all of: Rick Porcello- Already have enough starters for next year Noe Ramirez- Out of options anyways Sam Travis- We wouldn't need him at first anymore Michael Chavis- Blocked by Devers, Holt, Lin, Marrero, etc. Trey Ball- Probably won't be more than a reliever in the majors, and the Sox already have those. Sandy Leon- Enough catchers for now. Are you kidding me? Vazquez and Leon are the current MLB catching tandem, beyond them, the Sox have no viable option at catcher. Swihart has been injury plagued and regressed at the plate. Beyond him, nothing until the low minors. Chavis has a future here I believe. The kids bat should find him a spot. If Ramirez has no future here, why would he be reliable elsewhere? Trading Porcello, 1 year after his cy young season? Still not even 30 with a good contract by todays standards. Trey Ball is rule 5 eligible I believe. He could very well be gone soon. Sam Travis has a future on this team in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 5, 2017 17:17:14 GMT -5
Chavis is blocked by Holt, Lin, Marrero?
Maybe it they add a few more non-prospects, Cincinnati might be interested. I cannot imagine how mad Reds fans would be if this trade were made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2017 17:18:13 GMT -5
After Moreland is a free agent, the sox will need a first baseman, however, Votto would be expensive. We might be able to get him for all of: Rick Porcello- Already have enough starters for next year Noe Ramirez- Out of options anyways Sam Travis- We wouldn't need him at first anymore Michael Chavis- Blocked by Devers, Holt, Lin, Marrero, etc. Trey Ball- Probably won't be more than a reliever in the majors, and the Sox already have those. Sandy Leon- Enough catchers for now. Are you kidding me? Vazquez and Leon are the current MLB catching tandem, beyond them, the Sox have no viable option at catcher. Swihart has been injury plagued and regressed at the plate. Beyond him, nothing until the low minors. Chavis has a future here I believe. The kids bat should find him a spot. If Ramirez has no future here, why would he be reliable elsewhere? Trading Porcello, 1 year after his cy young season? Still not even 30 with a good contract by todays standards. Trey Ball is rule 5 eligible I believe. He could very well be gone soon. Sam Travis has a future on this team in my opinion. That's what we'd need to do to get him, if you don't like it; and you have reason to, then we will need to get someone else.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 5, 2017 18:33:24 GMT -5
Are you kidding me? Vazquez and Leon are the current MLB catching tandem, beyond them, the Sox have no viable option at catcher. Swihart has been injury plagued and regressed at the plate. Beyond him, nothing until the low minors. Chavis has a future here I believe. The kids bat should find him a spot. If Ramirez has no future here, why would he be reliable elsewhere? Trading Porcello, 1 year after his cy young season? Still not even 30 with a good contract by todays standards. Trey Ball is rule 5 eligible I believe. He could very well be gone soon. Sam Travis has a future on this team in my opinion. That's what we'd need to do to get him, if you don't like it; and you have reason to, then we will need to get someone else. First off Joey Votto is a 10-5 guy. He isn't going anywhere without giving his blessing and there's no sign that the Reds are interested or that he wants to go. And as far as dealing for him, trading 10 guys for him isn't even remotely realistic. The Sox would have to give up Groome, Chavis, and a lot more, and I'm not talking about disposable Trey Balls and Noe Ramirezes. And if the Reds do this it would be for financial relief so why would they want to pay a struggling Rick Porcello 20 million/year? And when you say this is what we need to do to get him, how in the world do you have idea what it would really take to get him? You have to be realistic about this stuff. The Reds GM isn't the brightest guy in the world but he's not that stupid. He knows who the face of his franchise is.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Aug 6, 2017 6:24:23 GMT -5
Joey Votto has a very bad contract. You can't forget that, it kills his trade value. Look at Miggy age 33 season was great, age 34 not even close. Votto is right at that age, 33 where he could start declining at anytime. If he does there will be no trading him without the Reds paying a massive amount of money. Not counting retained salaries, the Reds 2017 payroll was below 100 million. Votto is going to cost them more than 25 % of there payroll next year. They have no chance of winning over the next 2-3 years. Votto while the face of the franchise isn't a Jeter or Ortiz type player either. He has never won anything for the Reds. There are no bunch of titles like with Jeter and Ortiz.
Without the Reds kicking in money, how many teams would take on that contract? I would say only a handful. So his market is very limited. Hence his value is a lot lower than many of you think. No team in there right mind is going to trade two top 100 prospects, plus a bunch more for a 34 year old 1B with that contract. He's not Sale! He's not young on maybe the best deal in Majors. He's old on one of the 10 worst contracts in Baseball.
If the Reds were smart they would take the best offer they can get and move on to a full rebuild. Spend that 25 million on Vets to flip at trade deadline. Use it to retain young players that will help you in the future.
While I think we could get him for a lot less than a bunch of you, I still pass. No need to clog up our payroll with an old player making 25 million till age 39, with an option year at age 40. Rather give that money to Betts, Bradley, Sale, Erod, etc. If they would have ate Sandovals deal, things would have been different. Without that, time to move on.
|
|
|
Joey Votto
Aug 13, 2017 13:17:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jiant2520 on Aug 13, 2017 13:17:29 GMT -5
Joey Votto has a very bad contract. You can't forget that, it kills his trade value. Look at Miggy age 33 season was great, age 34 not even close. Votto is right at that age, 33 where he could start declining at anytime. If he does there will be no trading him without the Reds paying a massive amount of money. Not counting retained salaries, the Reds 2017 payroll was below 100 million. Votto is going to cost them more than 25 % of there payroll next year. They have no chance of winning over the next 2-3 years. Votto while the face of the franchise isn't a Jeter or Ortiz type player either. He has never won anything for the Reds. There are no bunch of titles like with Jeter and Ortiz. Without the Reds kicking in money, how many teams would take on that contract? I would say only a handful. So his market is very limited. Hence his value is a lot lower than many of you think. No team in there right mind is going to trade two top 100 prospects, plus a bunch more for a 34 year old 1B with that contract. He's not Sale! He's not young on maybe the best deal in Majors. He's old on one of the 10 worst contracts in Baseball. If the Reds were smart they would take the best offer they can get and move on to a full rebuild. Spend that 25 million on Vets to flip at trade deadline. Use it to retain young players that will help you in the future. While I think we could get him for a lot less than a bunch of you, I still pass. No need to clog up our payroll with an old player making 25 million till age 39, with an option year at age 40. Rather give that money to Betts, Bradley, Sale, Erod, etc. If they would have ate Sandovals deal, things would have been different. Without that, time to move on. I agree. I would love his bat at #4 in the lineup.... just not worth two top prospects... if Cincy ate some salary, maybe we talk.
|
|
|
Joey Votto
Aug 22, 2017 17:16:58 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by jdb on Aug 22, 2017 17:16:58 GMT -5
Come to think of it, a buy low trade for AGon with a bunch of money thrown in would be way more realistic for next year. I was thinking about this a few weeks back. He'd probably come pretty cheap. Also am I the only one who doesn't think Votto's contract is bad? He's consitantly been worth 30+ million on fangraphs and already approaching $40 so far in 2017. I like it a lot better than Stantons given the length and the injury history there.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 23, 2017 12:17:56 GMT -5
Come to think of it, a buy low trade for AGon with a bunch of money thrown in would be way more realistic for next year. I was thinking about this a few weeks back. He'd probably come pretty cheap. Also am I the only one who doesn't think Votto's contract is bad? He's consitantly been worth 30+ million on fangraphs and already approaching $40 so far in 2017. I like it a lot better than Stantons given the length and the injury history there. I am all in on Votto. Sadly, like Stanton, Sox don't have the prospects to get him if he was put on the open (trading) market.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 23, 2017 13:13:59 GMT -5
Moved some Votto-related posts to this thread.
|
|
|