We’ve spent countless articles (ok, not countless – we know how to use the search function and we can count) talking about acquiring Cleveland’s superstar shortstop Francisco Lindor. He fits the biggest need on the Cincinnati Reds roster and outside of catcher, he plays the most important position on the field. Landing a star caliber shortstop would be the shot in the arm that the Reds need that could help take them to the next level. With Lindor on the trade market, MLB.com gathered up some of their writers to propose trades to various teams – including Cincinnati.

For their Reds trade scenario it was Matt Kelly who tried to tackle the deal he believes it might take to get Cleveland interested in the trade. He certainly nailed the part about getting Cleveland interested. For Cincinnati, though….. it feels like the Herschel Walker trade. Kelly proposed that the Cincinnati Reds offer shortstop Jose Garcia, outfielder Nick Senzel, catcher Tyler Stephenson, third base prospect Jonathan India, and 2020 1st round pick and outfielder Austin Hendrick.

Look at that trade offer again. Those aren’t individual offers, where some of them make sense for a one year deal and paying roughly $20,000,000 in salary to Francisco Lindor. That’s a trade offer that includes all five of those players to acquire one year of Lindor all while also paying him about $20,000,000 in salary. If the deal were to happen, like the Sonny Gray trade two winter’s ago, that included an extension, that’s different. But the chances that Lindor is going to agree to that kind of deal or that the Reds would be willing to write a check big enough to make that happen seem astronomical (no, we don’t mean this in a stealing signs kind of way).

Now, to be fair to Kelly, he does note in the “Who says no?” section that it’s the Reds that would say no to this trade. But the fact that the second you read the trade offer you already know who says no to it should be enough to revise the trade offer. If that is the kind of offer it’s going to take to acquire one year of anyone, it’s simply not worth it.

48 Responses

  1. Andy

    Well that’s just a ridiculous trade proposal. Ridiculous. Ridiculous!

  2. Jimbo44CN

    The Reds cannot afford him for more than a year anyway, and that is a ridiculous trade scenario, so as I have said all along, NO to Lindor.

    • Mark Moore

      +1000 for use of a favorite phrase.

  3. Doc

    That’s half the Reds future potential infield, two thirds of their potential future outfield, their potential future catcher, and their top draft pick for one year of a shortstop.trading away 5-8 years of your team for one year of a shortstop? Lindor ain’t that good, and anybody who thinks one player can make a difference should take a look at the Phillies and the Angels, as two recent examples, and they only gave up money.

  4. AllTheHype

    Kelly clearly is not able to conceptualize trade values.

  5. Melvin

    Hahaha….. I don’t think so. I do think we could get him still for a lot less though. If not let some other team overpay.

  6. Sliotar

    From the MLB.com article … “But Senzel’s stock — due to both health and generally uninspiring performance — has dropped substantially in the two years since he ranked among baseball’s top prospects, meaning Cincinnati will have to really pony up in the prospect department.”

    I remember the dark days of Reds 2016 and 2017, when the Senzel-Winker combo was supposed to be the anchor for the next contention window.

    Next time Krall holds a press conference, I think it would be fair for all local media to press him on “what exactly is the Reds contention window at this moment, in your eyes?”

    I won’t hold my breach on “C. Trent” or anyone else doing anything challenging.

    • AllTheHype

      Reds contention window is three years. After which, Gray, Castillo, and Mahle are all free agents in the same offseason.

      • citizen54

        Hate to break it to you but this year was the window. Next year: No more Bauer. All the FA signings are going to be one year older and worse. Sad thing is even with all the short sighted panic induced moves, this year’s team was no where close to competing with the Dodgers. The Reds might be a .500 team next year but after that get ready for 4-5 years of fighting the Pirates for last place in the division.

    • Doug Gray

      Just about everyone will answer the question with “We don’t plan to have a window, we plan to build our entire organization to contend every year”.

    • DanD

      Let’s go ahead and add Greene, Lodolo and Hinds and get the deal done.

      • Mark Moore

        And a bucket of balls … you can’t forget the bucket of balls.

  7. JB

    Well here we are again. Another year and another Indians will be trading Lindor or all their pitchers off season. Every team and basically every person on this planet knows the Indians have to trade Lindor at some time before losing him. Heck they’ve started it for 3 years it seems. They aren’t getting as much for him as they think and certainly not that from the Reds. Indians have painted themselves in a corner and they wont get squat if they wait until the trade deadline next summer. Wouldnt be surprised if its March and he still is an Indian. There are a lot of teams who will pass and just wait a year because those teams are smart enough to know they aren’t winning a championship next year and are not giving up the future. Especially with next season being a unknown.

  8. indyDoug

    I wouldn’t give them Stephenson and Garcia for 1 year of Lindor

  9. RedsGettingBetter

    Back Offer: Senzel (Indians would always like to have him), India, Stephenson and 2021 second-round pick for Lindor and Shane Bieber.

  10. Bob Purkey

    As the old saying goes. . .You can’t argue with ignorance!

  11. CI3J

    Honest question: Do you think Lindor alone is the missing piece that makes the Reds a serious threat to the Dodgers? Further, do you think it is worth mortgaging the future for one, single, solitary shot to find out?

    Regardless of the outcome, the question then becomes: What do the Reds do next year? They will once again be without a shortstop, and will have even fewer pieces to make a deal to acquire one. If the Reds’ plan is to keep trading away a top prospect or two every season to acquire a 1 year superstar player like Bauer or Lindor, they are going to quickly run out of trade chips and/or future cheap, controllable talent.

    So I question what the end goal here is. What are they trying to accomplish? I mean, obviously, it’s “Win the World Series.”, but I’d rather build a sustainable winner, not a flash-in-the-pan winner like the Marlins in 1997 and again in 2003. The Reds cannot follow the Yankees/Cubs/Dodgers/Red Sox model of just throwing money at superstars, so they need to build from within. Trading those potential players/trade chips away for a single year of Lindor seems very counter-productive.

    Can someone explain the logic of trading for 1 year of Lindor?

    • steven p dunaway

      Agreed. What if he gets hurt?

  12. Kevin

    I had the same reaction to reading that this morning. The whole point of trying to get Lindor is to bridge the gap between now and when Jose Garcia is ready to play. If the cost of getting him includes trading Jose Garcia, then trying to get Lindor no longer makes any sense. It was a stupid article. I wish sports journalism didn’t include so much pountless speculation.

  13. LDS

    Kelly’s proposal is absurd. Lindor isn’t worth anywhere near that much. He’s just click baiting, knowing we’d all go look.

  14. Greenfield Red

    I had a brother living in DFW at the time of that trade. We used to hang out with several of his friends there at the time. It was roughly the same time the Minnesota North Stars (NHL) moved to Dallas. The local good dudes used to say they got the Stars in the Herschal Walker trade. Thought that was funny.

    In roughly the same era, Barry Switzer was the Cowboys coach, and he was not popular there. These guys all had “Bury Switzer” bumper stickers on their trucks.

    I thought both were funny observations.

  15. TR

    Get Gregorius for a couple years and let Jose Garcia work on his hitting technique.

  16. west larry

    Kelly’s potential trade for Lindor is a joke.
    IF WE WOULD ACCEPT THAT OFFER, MY 50 YEARS OF FOLLOWING THE REDS WOULD BE OVER. Hell, I wouldn’t give Garcia and Senzel for one year of Lindor. We need to sign Simmons or some other above average for a year or two to let Garcia develop his offensive skills. He is already a defensive wiz.

    • LDS

      I’m a bit over 50 years myself. Got to tell you, the first 10 years were pretty good but it’s been slim pickings for most of the subsequent 40.

  17. Don

    Laughable trade scenario. Indians would jump at that deal in 1 microsecond or less.

    For the Reds, why bring in a “marquee” name player whom hits 250 – 280 someplace else and make him a 200 – 220 average hitter with 20 HR, walk 60 times and strike out 150 times.

    There must someone else that they ream can pay a lot less to play shortstop, until the hitting approach at the plate changes, it does not matter whom the players are, a team average of 210 will never score enough runs consistently to be more than at best a 500 team.

    I do not know why anyone would think that the if Lindor comes to the Reds he would hits better than 225 with a 290 OBP is fooling themselves

  18. MK

    Votto is closer to home in Cleveland. So Votto, pay 2/3 of contract, and pay him 5 million to give up no trade and throw in Blandino and Senzel.

    Votto can DH for them, they can move Ramierez to short, Senzel to third and Blandino to bench.

    Both teams save money in the short term.

    • west larry

      +500. I love that trade proposal, but Votto won’t waive his no trade clause, and even if he did, I doubt Cleveland would take that offer.

  19. Mark

    Gregorius is who we need to target on a 2 year deal.

  20. Roger Garrett

    Reds need much more then one player to contend.We are getting older and have a roster full of players that at best are designated hitters against certain pitchers.Joey,Moose and Big Nick are what they are in the field and on the bases and throw in Tucker that just can’t hit at all then we can see we need much much more then Lindor.Reds must go young and if anybody is traded for Lindor then please take all of the guys I just mentioned throw in Iggy if need be and lets move on.Of course now the Indians,once they stop laughing, will say NO.

  21. donny

    Indians would jump at that trade if Lindor had 4 yrs remaining .

  22. Kevin Patrick

    I’m just trying to imagine how a guy who sees the Reds probably as much as he sees the Indians at Goodyear, would imagine a trade scenario such as this. He must really be low on the value of the Reds farm system. I still think better matches can be found elsewhere if a trade like this was seriously on the table. I still think the Red Sox (who aren’t close either) should blow it all up and trade Xander Boegarts to the Reds. They don’t want that contract. Lets face it… the Reds would end up with one less question mark for like a bazillion years. Offer Garcia and Barnhardt.

    • Kevin Patrick

      I thought he was locked in longer… still… not a bad choice. I might offer another quality minor leaguer instead of Garcia if we only had XB for 2 years.

  23. MBS

    That is the most absurd trade proposal. Zero, I mean zero percent based in reality. I doubt the Reds get Lindor, but he is going. I just can’t wait to see the deal, it will be at a tenth of the cost of that deal.

  24. JayTheRed

    I don’t know why that trade was even offered up as an idea cause it would never happen.

  25. Gared2004

    I looked for a way to comment on that article when I saw it yesterday. I don’t know Matt Kelly, but he did himself no favors with that ludicrous proposal that in no way resembles reality. It made me think of the scene in Billy Madison. “We are all dumber for having heard this, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” Any 3 of those would be an overpay for one year without working out some kind of extension first. If Lindor had 3 or more years of control maybe you consider it. Mr. Kelly needs a reality check and some education about baseball. Not even Jim Bowden would have proposed something that ridiculous.

  26. SultanofSwaff

    You gotta match up present and future WAR in trade scenarios. This proposal is ridiculous when viewed thru that lens. I’m 100% on board with Lindor or Story as I feel the Reds are well positioned to win a weak division and make a deep run in the playoffs. As we saw with Bauer, guys find that extra motivation when playing for their one shot a a major payday. For either guy I offer with India and Santillan and Casali and don’t budge on giving up a top 5 prospect. Assume we get 5-7 WAR from either SS while taking on salary, I’d think we’d be retuning at least that much in future value.

  27. Stock

    The man has no clue. That was far more than requested with two years of control. Now there is only one year of control and Covid 19 is here. I am not sure most 5 year players (such as Lindor) even get offered a contract. He may very well be a FA in January.

    5 year players have little trade value this year in my opinion. Even someone as talented as Lindor.

    Aquino, Santillan and Gutierrez. If they say no then spend the money elsewhere.

    IMO Garcia for Lindor is lopsided in the Indians favor.

    I think writers like this do no research and are in for a big surprise this winter. Then again maybe I am.

  28. Tom Reeves

    I’d do it for Senzel, India, and Garcia if it includes a negotiated extension.

    I’d do it for Senzel and India even if it didn’t include an extent in.

    • CI3J

      I’d only do it if there is an extension involved. 1 year of Lindor is a pointless waste of trade chips.

  29. doofus

    Let’s think outside the box.

    The Reds get Willy Adames, Blake Snell and Kevin Kiermaier for Senzel, Mahle and Barnhart. The collective ages and number of years the players are under control are comparable. Reds are taking on salary, but that is why Adames is included in the deal.

    The salary they are taking on for Snell and Kiermaier is comparable to what they would need to pay Lindor.

    Reds need a SS; Rays need a catcher…check. Gold glove Kiermaier replaces Senzel. Senzel probably moves to 3B for Rays. He is better than Wendle. Margot is the the Rays new centerfielder.

    Snell replaces Bauer in the rotation. Mahle is not Snell.

    The 3 Rays players have WS experience.

  30. Still a Red

    Here’s what I don’t get. Why don’t organizations front load contracts for star players ready to go FA…pay them now for their latest performance and the next year or two and then, as normally the case performance tends to fall off, they get paid less and trading them becomes more doable. I was quite amazed at Joey’s contract, and impressed with the Reds willingness to do it, but seriously why does he get paid more at the end when performance is expected to decline. Same with the Indians and Lindor…why not pay him big up front, keep him, and pay him less as years go by. Now, I know players have to go along with that….but it only makes sense.

    • Jimbo44CN

      I agree it should be performance based, just like most jobs in the real world. But, they and their agents don’t agree, and as long as they have percieved value right now and owners are willing to pay up, it will continue this way.

  31. Joe

    Clickbait is exactly what this article is about. Let’s see how the Reds get Lindor but once you start reading you keep waiting for the writer to claim he is a foreign prince that needs to deposit his fortune in your bank account.
    The Indians must trade him. Everyone knows this and the Reds have been a reasonable trade partner so odds are they will discuss it. My worry isn’t giving up our future but if ownership wants to add payroll. It was a tough year financially after their largest offseason spending spree. Williams left for a reason and that may be a feeling ownership isn’t committed to spend. We will see I guess