Does Bruce really need more time to develop?

The Reds are sitting in a position similar to where the Brewers were a few years ago with several prospects in the pipeline- Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Weeks, Yovani Gallardo. With a little patience they could do well in two years when Homer Bailey, Johnny Cueto, Jay Bruce, and Joey Votto mature. Either let those guys play now or give them time to develop in AAA, but don't trade them for likes of Joe Blanton. He is a solid number 3 stater, but will not give them a pennant this year.

Does Bruce really need more time to develop?

He is projected to have about an 850 OPS this year in the bigs. I say let play.

But has anyone considered this question: Does Bruce really need more time to develop?

If a prospect is doesn't make the team coming out of camp but is called up in May or June, doesn't his service clock start later?
I recall reading something about teams failing to take advantage of "losing" a month of the player's career in exchange for having him cheaply for a whole year down the road.

Come on guys, "potential superstar" or Kenny Lofton?

Who doesn't take Cool Papa Bell?

Yes, it effectively starts a year later because he'll presumably at some point end up with 5.9 years of service (rather than 6) at some point, meaning that his team will control him through the following year.

You can never have too many veterans at key positions to block....er, compete with talented young players. Motivates the kids to to perform better, dontcha see. Right, Dusty?

Makes sense, then, to break camp without Bruce.

Not that I'm defending the decision to bring in Lofton.

Either let those guys play now or give them time to develop in AAA, but don't trade them for likes of Joe Blanton. He is a solid number 3 stater, but will not give them a pennant this year.

I think you overestimate what a #3 is. Joe Blanton may be a #3 if he was traded to Cleveland or Arizona, but for most teams, he'd be a solid #2 or even an ace. A rotation of Harang, Blanton, Arroyo, Bailey (if he's not traded) and Belisle/Affeldt would be good enough to seriously compete in the NL.

Blanton is a #1 on the A's.

Ehh, you could be going too far on Blanton. Good K to BB, but still limited strikeout numbers. Low home run count. He's good, yes, but "potential ace"?

I'm not sure.

Blanton's H/R splits are scary.

Ehh, you could be going too far on Blanton. Good K to BB, but still limited strikeout numbers. Low home run count. He's good, yes, but "potential ace"?

I'm not sure.

He'd be an ace for a number of teams. A lot of really bad teams have really bad pitchers as their "ace" right now. Blanton is better than what a lot of bottom feeders will be starting on opening day.

For a lot of teams though, he's probably a solid #2.

What exactly is the matter with the Reds giving themselves quality OF options?

If he looks like he could use a few months in AAA after the spring, and that wouldn't hurt anything certainly and might help, you don't want to force him to the bigs because you don't have any other quality options.

Lofton isn't going to get anything more than one year for a couple mil anyway, so there isn't much to lose. It would be a solid signing, not much downside, plus if he is OK you can probably get some decentish prospect for him at the deadline.

Harang, Blanton, Arroyo, Bailey.. Belisle/Affeldt would be good enough to seriously compete in the NL

The Giants are going to lose 100 games with a rotation that spanks those five and the horse they rode in on. The Reds will be a better team, but they won't 'seriously compete' for much outside the NL Central -- you know, the weakest division in the weaker league.

What exactly is the matter with the Reds giving themselves quality OF options?

That Dusty might not divide playing time among those options in an optimal way.

The Giants are going to lose 100 games with a rotation that spanks those five and the horse they rode in on.

Sure, and the Reds don't have a lineup full of players who are the worst in the league at their position.

- you know, the weakest division in the weaker league.

Well, we were talking about competing for the pennant, so the fact that its a weak league is a reason to believe the Reds can compete for the pennant. If they can compete for the division, which I think they should be able to, I think they can compete for the pennant. A short series with Harang, Arroyo and Blanton would give the Reds at least a fighter's chance. I'm not saying they'd be favorite or anything, but adding Blanton to the Reds would allow for them to seriously compete for the pennant this year. That's all I'm saying.

"That Dusty might not divide playing time among those options in an optimal way."

I know, but that is a player utilization issue, not a roster construction one.

If you've hired Dusty, or anyone, you obviously trust them to do a good job deploying their playing options correctly. You don't intentionally avoid improving your roster.

It would be idiotic to shorthand your roster because of some fear related to your manager.

Your manager playing someone too much does not make the signing bad

Shock probably meant that Baker would clog out Bruce if the Reds got another outfielder not as good as, but more veteran than him. Then, 3 games behind the Brewers in late July, they'd trade Bruce for Blanton.

I think the Reds -- not just Dusty -- are determined to not simply plug Bruce in at CF out of camp. If that's the case, it's much better to have Lofton around than be stuck with Freel and Hopper. Not to mention the fact that Griffey may (will) be hurt sometime this season, which would make an outfield of Dunn, Hopper, and Freel at some point.

Most of what the Reds are doing should be seen through the prism of wanting to seriously compete in 2009-forward, and not 2008, and I can't say I disagree with that approach. Sure, anyone could grab the NL Central this year, but wouldn't you want to try and position yourself to dominate it for a few years?

I think this division will not be that easy to win. The Brewers have loaded up with Mike Cameron (allowing Braun to go to the OF) , bullpen pieces to go with a deep pitching staff, and have the young talent coming of age. The Cubs have improved with Fukudome. I don't think you can grab this division.

Most of what the Reds are doing should be seen through the prism of wanting to seriously compete in 2009-forward, and not 2008, and I can't say I disagree with that approach.

If the team is worried about 2009 then they should have shipped Dunn for some pitching. As it stands, it looks like Adam is going to walk away at the end of this year and the Reds aren't going to get immediate help for their major league club.

They didn't hire Dusty Baker for a rebuilding job. No reason to pay that kind of salary to lose 90 games.

I don't get the fuss about waiting on Bruce. An extra 200 ABs in AAA isn't going to kill him, and Lofton's not a bad player. Eventually, talent does come through, even when the management staff is stubborn (Los Angeles Dodgers, 2007).

I know, but that is a player utilization issue, not a roster construction one.

If you've hired Dusty, or anyone, you obviously trust them to do a good job deploying their playing options correctly. You don't intentionally avoid improving your roster.

It would be idiotic to shorthand your roster because of some fear related to your manager.

Your manager playing someone too much does not make the signing bad

Idiotic or not, that's what you have to do with Dusty as your manager. He played Corey Patterson because he had no other center field options. Other than that, if you give Dusty a young player and and old player that can play the same position, he will pay lip service to playing the younger guy. Then he'll sit the young guy against a tough pitcher, in a day game after a night game, after a mistake, after he goes 0-4, etc. After a while the young guy will only be playing once a week and not hitting, at which point Dusty will say that he's not ready.

This applies to hitters only. Young pitchers under Dusty are a whole different analysis.

What exactly is the matter with the Reds giving themselves quality OF options?

That Dusty might not divide playing time among those options in an optimal way.

Speaking strictly hypothetically, of course.

Then, 3 games behind the Brewers in late July, they'd trade Bruce for Blanton.

This move has the official Grushenko family seal of approval.

Idiotic or not, that's what you have to do with Dusty as your manager. He played Corey Patterson because he had no other center field options.

And in Patterson's case, the problem wasn't that Dusty played him--it's that Baker completely miscast Patterson until Corey failed to the point of being booed upon his entering the 60613 zip code. Patterson is and was a player with major limitations, but if they'd just stuck him in the 7-hole and left him alone, he probably would've been fine.

Lofton as a 4th OF (backing up Dunn, Griffey, and sharing time w/ Freel while keeping Bruce's spot warm) isn't a bad idea @ all. The problem is, of course, Dusty being Dusty (as Greg Pope, & others, have detailed) if Bruce comes up in May or June and does poorly in limited PT. I'd be worried about Freel taking potential ABs away from him, but he'll probably be too busy turning that trick on Encarnacion after EE drops a 3-error 0fer w/ 6 LOB on the stat sheet.

If you've hired Dusty, or anyone, you obviously trust them to do a good job deploying their playing options correctly.

This isn't necessarily true. Just because the Reds hired Dusty Baker doesn't mean that the Reds think that Dusty Baker is a perfect manager and will do a good job at all aspects of his job. Dusty Baker has positives - veterans, especially veteran hitters, play very well under him - and negatives - he's hesitant to play young players. It could be the case that the Reds simply decided the pluses - better performances from Griffey and Dunn - outweighed the minuses - another season in AAA for Bruce and Votto.

If the Reds want Bruce to be their primary CF and/or Votto to be their primary 1B, then they need to make sure that Dusty doesn't have veteran alternatives. That said, I've seen no evidence to suggest that the Reds actually want Bruce and/or Votto to be their primary starters (either that or they don't fully understand Dusty Baker's managing proclivities).