The local news said that Kearns is officially on the Cubs outfield wish list. The Cubs are being outspoken about it and the Reds won't talk to the media about, is how the news reported it. I predict a lot of trade suggestions and a lot " :dflynn: " from Redszoners.

The cubs have nothing to offer

Carlos Zambrano.

Too steep for you, Dusty? Too bad.

Carlos Zambrano....nothing less

What about Kearns and Griffey for Patterson and prospects? Cubs pay Griffey's salary - we get rid of Patterson ASAP, or keep him for a year. (I can't believe I am saying this - I hate Patterson. And this leaves us one outfielder short. Are the Cubs serious enough about wanting Kearns to take Griffey? Are we serious enough about getting rid of Griffey and acquiring flexibility to get rid of Kearns?) I forget this isn't the Jim Bowden era, and we don't have a neverending supply of outfield prospects and veterans who will mysteriously be awesome for a year (Gant, Guillen, Encarnacion, etc.)

I would absolutely hate to see Kearns as a Cub. (He probably wouldn't mind being one though.)

Now Zambrano as a Red ... that wouldn't be too bad. ;)

Carlos Zambrano.

Too steep for you, Dusty? Too bad.

I'd ask for Zambrano too, but the art of the deal would be in shifting the argument to "What can you give me of similar value?" rather than eliciting a quick "No" ... click.

top 6, packaging Jr. and getting back Patterson is a nifty idea. I'd probably do it if the Cubs were willing to swallow Jr. whole.

But I'm wondering if the Cubs could make this happen with prospects. They've been willing to move kids in recent years. Off the top of my head Felix Pie, Reynel Pinto and Bobby Brownlie. That's a AA stud CF filthy with tools and two AAA arms who've been nothing but successful to date.

I'm new here but have been a reds fan all my life an have seen good reds players dealt for nothing in return. I say give Kearns half a season and then deal him.

M2, according to my friends who are Cub fans, the Cubs have the next Mike Schmidt, Johnny Bench, Pedro Martinez, Joe Morgan, Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ in their system. So I think we might be able to swing something. (Also, Greg Maddux is going to revert to his early '90s form, Aramis Ramirez will easily replace the production of Sosa and Alou and the new Cubs announcers will be enjoyable to listen to.)

I do think the Cubs have a decent system - but if the Cubs are desparate (and I don't really think they are) I would try to get them to take away our biggest headache - Griffey's salary. Although the idea of Griffey putting together a few quality seasons in a Cubs uniform sort of makes me sick.

I think this might all be moot - the Cubs new plan to replace the production of a sure fire hall of famer with Jeremy Burnitz should solve all of their problems.

Have I mentioned that I do not like the Cubs - not at all.

Carlos Zambrano.

Too steep for you, Dusty? Too bad.

Yep. And that's the starting price for me. I have feeling that the Cubs don't truly appreciate Zambrano enough and that's all the leverage I'd need to get him. In fact, if I couldn't grab Zambrano and a value prospect for Kearns I'd be embarassed.

I would seriously look at Kearns and Jr for Zambrano, Pie, Brownlie, Pinto or Beltran. But I would start with an asking price of those guys plus Patterson and see if they flinch. And I would be willing to pay Jr's deferments in that deal.

Zambrano for Kearns works for both teams. If anyone would have to sweeten that deal, it would be the Reds. Kearns' track record is just too spotty right now.

But if I'm the Reds, I think I'd try to shift the discussions to Pena and be willing to add significantly (Wagner?).

I too think Pena would be a better fit for the cubbies. They could use the next Sammy Sosa.

Sounds like now they will likely land Burnitz...who knows if they will continue to pursue Kearns...

I would absolutely hate to see Kearns as a Cub. (He probably wouldn't mind being one though.)I think he wants to stay with the Reds. He DID seem mighty comfortable patrolling right field last September...man, he played awesome in that series.

I hate the Cubs. I would never trade with them.

Keep Kearns!

Cubs will probably sign Burnitz to play RF. I doubt very much the Cubs want to break up their starting rotation of Wood, Prior and Zambrano, especially after losing Clement to free agency.

IMO dealing Austin for anything less than a Zambrano and prospect would be foolish, because Dunn's going to be out of here as soon as he reaches FA. Maybe Austin's not worth that much to the Cubs, but he is to the Reds.

This is a tough one. I wouldn't want to be in Dan's shoes right now. And I'll second the opinion of a poster above - the thought that Griffey could string together a couple of good seasons in Wrigley makes me sick.

This from ESPN this morning.

The Cubs also are expected to explore what it would take to trade for Tampa Bay's Aubrey Huff and Oakland's Eric Byrnes. But they're said to be less than optimistic about matching up with the Devil Rays and unsure whether Byrnes would provide the kind of production they're looking for.

The Cubs are offering reliever Kyle Farnsworth as the centerpiece of any deal, an official of one team that has spoken with Chicago told Stark.

The Mets' Cliff Floyd and the Reds' Austin Kearns also have shown up on the Cubs' list at various points this winter. But Floyd has two years left on his contract and wouldn't seem as attractive if he weren't being swapped for another big contract like Sosa's. And there have been no indications the Reds are hot on moving Kearns, despite nonstop rumors -- particularly within their own division.

The fact that Farnsworth is considered the centerpiece of any deal indicates that the Cubs are not serious about replacing Sosa's production in the outfield.

Farnsworth?!

:lol:

Yeah, that'll happen. And to think I was concerned for a moment.

Be great to watch him and Wilson share a clubhouse, though.

Wait until May when Griffey goes down, then just be thankful Kearns wasnt traded.

Off the top of my head Felix Pie, Reynel Pinto and Bobby Brownlie.
Mmmmmmmmmm, Pie.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-8/815381/Homer.JPG

Boy, the Cubs could sure use a slugging veteran RF. Know any?

M2, according to my friends who are Cub fans, the Cubs have the next Mike Schmidt, Johnny Bench, Pedro Martinez, Joe Morgan, Barry Bonds, Randy Johnson, Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Jesus Christ in their system.
Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball. ;)

I'd ask for Zambrano too, but the art of the deal would be in shifting the argument to "What can you give me of similar value?" rather than eliciting a quick "No" ... click.

That's the thing...I don't think they have anything else of similar value. They're offering Kyle Farnsworth and prospects for Aubrey Huff, for Pete's sake. From my perspective, it's Zambrano or a dial tone.

But I'm wondering if the Cubs could make this happen with prospects. They've been willing to move kids in recent years. Off the top of my head Felix Pie, Reynel Pinto and Bobby Brownlie. That's a AA stud CF filthy with tools and two AAA arms who've been nothing but successful to date.

If I were the Reds, I'd be all over that trade. I love the numbers Brownlie and Pinto have racked up, and Pie looks very, very good as well. I would maybe inquire about Guzman to see about how available he would be first.

Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball. ;)

:MandJ:

This is ridiculous. There is no way the Reds trade in their own division. Absolutely no way. Even for Zambrano. It’s not worth the risk of getting burned. I don’t care if they were to trade Griffey for Dusty Baker’s bat boy son & cash, it’s not worth the risk. No deals should ever be made with NL Central rivals.

When was the last time the Reds traded in their own division? The one that sticks out in my mind was the Dmitri Young/Jeff Brantley trade in ’98. That one didn’t work out too well for St. Louis, did it?

This has to be typical FO protocol to know trading in your division is taboo. This rumor is laughable and was obviously started by the media in Chicago trying to generate interest after trading a future hall of famer. Squash this one, it’s dead.

No deals should ever be made with NL Central rivals.

That's like playing to cover your own behind rather than playing to win. If the right deal crops up, a good GM makes it without worrying about rivalries.

What about Kearns and Griffey for Patterson and prospects?


Interesting idea, however the way I look at it is that Jr only has 3 more years left (or is it 4?)

We aren't likely to contend in that timespan anyhow.

If you make this trade, we have to go out and get another OF, unless you want Freel as your starting CF.

A big part of the problem is that if the Reds did trade Jr, they don't have the prospects to trade to exploit the payflex they've gained. Ideally, you'd like to be able to trade for a young pitcher just entering arb, instead of just turning around and signing another pricey FA. (Even adding a Clement with that money does not make us a contender)

So, since Jr's time is relatively short, I say we're better off just keeping him and hoping he rebounds, as opposed to packaging Kearns with him, just to get rid of him.

I would love to see Zambrano here pitching every 5th day, I think he is one of the brightest young pitchers in the National League (if not a little mentally unstable at times, haha). That being said I don't think the Cubbies would trade him after already having lost Clement in the offseason. Like a few others have stated before me in this thread, my conversation with the Cubs would start and end with Zambrano. If he isn't included in the deal then there is no deal.

A straight up Zambrano for Kearns swap would make great sense for both teams needs which means without a doubt that it won't get done.

Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball. ;)

And he never has any smokes.

That George Washington guy would be interesting. He's got one heck of an arm.

This is ridiculous. There is no way the Reds trade in their own division. Absolutely no way. Even for Zambrano. It’s not worth the risk of getting burned. I don’t care if they were to trade Griffey for Dusty Baker’s bat boy son & cash, it’s not worth the risk. No deals should ever be made with NL Central rivals.

When was the last time the Reds traded in their own division? The one that sticks out in my mind was the Dmitri Young/Jeff Brantley trade in ’98. That one didn’t work out too well for St. Louis, did it?

This has to be typical FO protocol to know trading in your division is taboo. This rumor is laughable and was obviously started by the media in Chicago trying to generate interest after trading a future hall of famer. Squash this one, it’s dead.

This is shortsighted and an oldworld baseball view. If you are good as a GM and have confidence in yourself, and the deal fits with your plan, you do it and don't worry about it. Don't overpay, don't make it easy, but if the deal is right, you get it done.

Jr and Kearns for Zambrano, Patterson, Pie, Brownlie, Pinto is a doable deal for both sides and given the front office views, a deal that makes sense for CHC. If it works out well for CHC, so be it. The key is, does it work out well for us?

When was the last time the Reds traded in their own division?

Norton from the Cubs (Taubensee from the Astros, Young from the Cardinals, Silva from the Pirates and Ochea from the Brewers)

That said The Cubs are not going to send the Reds a pitcher with a predicted VORP of 40 for a hitter that has an injury history.

I think some people are overvaluing Austin Kearns at this particular point in time. He has not put together a full season of dominance yet and has been injury prone. Now I'm not saying he's a bust, because I do think he will evolve into one of the better players in the game. He's solid offensively and defensively. But I think he would need to put together a full, healthy and productive year before other teams would be willing to talk about dealing a number one starter for him.

I think some people are overvaluing Austin Kearns at this particular point in time. He has not put together a full season of dominance yet and has been injury prone. Now I'm not saying he's a bust, because I do think he will evolve into one of the better players in the game. He's solid offensively and defensively. But I think he would need to put together a full, healthy and productive year before other teams would be willing to talk about dealing a number one starter for him.
Right...that and the likelihood that we'll have at least outfielder miss significant time is why we should keep him.

This is shortsighted and an oldworld baseball view. If you are good as a GM and have confidence in yourself, and the deal fits with your plan, you do it and don't worry about it. Don't overpay, don't make it easy, but if the deal is right, you get it done.

Jr and Kearns for Zambrano, Patterson, Pie, Brownlie, Pinto is a doable deal for both sides and given the front office views, a deal that makes sense for CHC. If it works out well for CHC, so be it. The key is, does it work out well for us?

There is no doubt about the talents of Zambrano & Patterson, etc. I guess it would pain me more to play the Cubs & get smoked by Kearns and/or Griffey.

If this theory is so “oldworld”, explain why it there is no inter-divsional trading? It’s common sense. Don’t let your players beat you, especially the ones you drafted & developed (Kearns). When was the last time the ChiSox and the Twins traded players? Or how about the Mets & Braves? Doesn’t happen…It's a death wish for a GM.

Right...that and the likelihood that we'll have at least outfielder miss significant time is why we should keep him.
Agreed.

I think some people are overvaluing Austin Kearns at this particular point in time. He has not put together a full season of dominance yet and has been injury prone. Now I'm not saying he's a bust, because I do think he will evolve into one of the better players in the game. He's solid offensively and defensively. But I think he would need to put together a full, healthy and productive year before other teams would be willing to talk about dealing a number one starter for him.I think that other squads may be undervaluing him, but his true worth is a top shelf pitcher. If the market doesn't think so, then we hold onto our stock, er I mean player, until the market figures out his market price. Since the Reds are not desperate to unload, they set the market. If the Cubs aren't ready to do a little speculating on our player, than they can figure out another way to get some offense and we'll figure out another way to get some pitching.

Norton from the Cubs (Taubensee from the Astros, Young from the Cardinals, Silva from the Pirates and Ochea from the Brewers)

That said The Cubs are not going to send the Reds a pitcher with a predicted VORP of 40 for a hitter that has an injury history.

We are obviously speaking about established players being traded. I’ll give you Taubensee, & Young, which I mentioned as well. Milwaukee may have still been in the AL when the Ochoa deal was made in 97 or 98 (somebody, correct me). But Norton!? Silva!? We are not talking about “under the radar” deals.

We are obviously speaking about established players being traded. I’ll give you Taubensee, & Young, which I mentioned as well. Milwaukee may have still been in the AL when the Ochoa deal was made in 97 or 98 (somebody, correct me). But Norton!? Silva!? We are not talking about “under the radar” deals.

Those are the "last" deals made with the team as listed in the Reds Media guides, Ochea was picked up after 1999 so it was a NL deal.

As far as "Obvious" goes you didn't state the obvious so thus it wasn't.

Those are the "last" deals made with the team as listed in the Reds Media guides, Ochea was picked up after 1999 so it was a NL deal.

Thanks for clarifying that West. My point is the likelihood of trading established players like Griffey, or budding superstars like Kearns & Zambrano in your own division is slim. Career minor leaguers or fringe talent, yes. Stars, no.

Thanks for clarifying that West. My point is the likelihood of trading established players like Griffey, or budding superstars like Kearns & Zambrano in your own division is slim. Career minor leaguers or fringe talent, yes. Stars, no.

I agree, the Cardinals still feel fleeced by the Reds in the Young deal, thus they avoid us, let's see if they still avoid Bowden.

The Reds and the Cubs have never ha da health trade history to the best of my memory, the Reds have traded regulary with St. Louis, LA, SF, Atlanta and Houston in the past but stayed away from Pittsburgh and Chicago and Philadelphia (until last year)

I agree, the Cardinals still feel fleeced by the Reds in the Young deal, thus they avoid us, let's see if they still avoid Bowden.

The Reds and the Cubs have never ha da health trade history to the best of my memory, the Reds have traded regulary with St. Louis, LA, SF, Atlanta and Houston in the past but stayed away from Pittsburgh and Chicago and Philadelphia (until last year)

Don't forget Cleveland & NY Yankees. They both have been frequent trade partners the last decade.

After sitting here brinstorming, the only recent inter-divisional deal I can think of is the Shawn Green to Arizona deal. Am I missing some the last couple of years or is it just as infrequent as I thought?

Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball. ;)

Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?!??

Don't forget Cleveland & NY Yankees. They both have been frequent trade partners the last decade.

After sitting here brinstorming, the only recent inter-divisional deal I can think of is the Shawn Green to Arizona deal. Am I missing some the last couple of years or is it just as infrequent as I thought?
Kind of puts the whole Lee May et al. for Joe Morgan et al. trade into perspective doesn't it?

Sounds like now they will likely land Burnitz

That would be subtraction by addition.

Don't forget Cleveland & NY Yankees. They both have been frequent trade partners the last decade.

After sitting here brinstorming, the only recent inter-divisional deal I can think of is the Shawn Green to Arizona deal. Am I missing some the last couple of years or is it just as infrequent as I thought?

The Cubs and Pirates made a few trades 2 years ago (Lofton and A Rameriz).

The Braves recently traded with the Marlins. The Marlins got Spoonermaker and another pitcher.

I think there's more trades outside the division simply because there's more teams outside the division. If you take into account that a team only has 3-5 trading partners in the division and 24-26 outside the division, I'm not sure that interdivision trading is that rare.

If this theory is so “oldworld”, explain why it there is no inter-divsional trading?
Because baseball is filled with old world thinking. That's why people still care so deeply about RBI, pitching Wins, Saves, and the Sacrifice Bunt.

And because baseball is also filled with CYA thinking.

If you run your team with fear of repercussions, you're not running your team to win.

Are you saying Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball?!??

All right, let's not start a Holy War here.

This is ridiculous. There is no way the Reds trade in their own division. Absolutely no way. Even for Zambrano. It’s not worth the risk of getting burned. I don’t care if they were to trade Griffey for Dusty Baker’s bat boy son & cash, it’s not worth the risk. No deals should ever be made with NL Central rivals.

When was the last time the Reds traded in their own division? The one that sticks out in my mind was the Dmitri Young/Jeff Brantley trade in ’98. That one didn’t work out too well for St. Louis, did it?

This has to be typical FO protocol to know trading in your division is taboo. This rumor is laughable and was obviously started by the media in Chicago trying to generate interest after trading a future hall of famer. Squash this one, it’s dead.

Oh, the Reds got a little 2B from a division rival a few years ago.....what was his name?......Morgan I think.

Oh, the Reds got a little 2B from a division rival a few years ago.....what was his name?......Morgan I think.

34 years is more than a few..... plus Lee May was coveted by a guy who devalued ob% and overvalued power because of the park he had to build a team for.

Oh, the Reds got a little 2B from a division rival a few years ago.....what was his name?......Morgan I think.

I think this particular debate only dates back the start of the free agent era. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that inter-divisional trading became less frequent with the creation of the wild card and re-alignment.

I agree with what was mentioned above about 5 trading partners (in your own division) versus 25 trading partners (elsewhere). But, hypothetically, if you were a GM and had an above average player on the block and you had two offers, one above average major league player (from a division rival) and another offer of one marginal major league player (from outside your division), as a GM you may be inclined to take the lesser talented player package in an effort to avoid playing against the player you traded.

(Sorry for the run-on)

as a GM you may be inclined to take the lesser talented player package in an effort to avoid playing against the player you traded

Yes.

And that's not a good thing. That's playing to avoid embarassment rather than playing to win.

as a GM you may be inclined to take the lesser talented player package in an effort to avoid playing against the player you traded.


Sure, it probably happens, but they're shooting themselves in the foot though.

If the Cardinals had offered a better package for Neagle in 2000, Bowden would've been a fool to trade him to the Yanks instead. If DanO gets a "10" offer from the Cubs for Kearns and an "8" offer from the Braves, he better take the Cubs offer, or he's an idiot.

Typically, most trades nowdays are made between a team rebuilding and a team trying to go for it, when an established player is involved. Sure, there's exceptions, but that's probably at least 75% of the time in today's world.
Given that the two teams are going in different directions, why worry about facing the established guy you dealt? You're rebuilding anyway.

Yes.

And that's not a good thing. That's playing to avoid embarassment rather than playing to win.

I agree, as well, Johnny. I never said it was the best strategy but that is the state of baseball economics. You would like to think the object of trading is to capture the best possible talent you can, however, egos, reputations, & methods to avoid exposure get in the way.

I guess to sum up my posts on this thread…I doubt you’ll see any trade activity between the Cubs & Reds involving and top prospects or major league talent.

If DanO gets a "10" offer from the Cubs for Kearns and an "8" offer from the Braves, he better take the Cubs offer, or he's an idiot.



That’s a different story though. The Reds & Cubs are closer in terms of talent than the Reds & Brewers.

So you would rather accept a trade from a team who, prior to the trade, has a better shot at beating you? I think that could be up for debate...let's use this situation...

The Brewers offer you an "8" trade and the Cubs offer you a "10" trade. Now even before the trade, the Reds and Cubs are roughly about even as far as talent goes. So you make the "8" trade and the person you traded away helps the Brewers gain 6 games in the standings. Super, now they are only 10 games out of first place. You make the "10" trade with the Cubs and, while you get more talent in return, that player you traded away helps the Cubs make up three games. Now depending on where you are in the standings this could either pull the Cubs even with you, put them past you, or let them pad the lead they already had on you. What would you rather do?

Know I know there are a lot of intangibles that this scenario doesn't capture, but it's the basic principle that I am after.

If you get an 8 offer and a 10 offer, you'd better take the 10 every time or you're occupying the desk of someone who could be doing a better job.

Thanks for clarifying that West. My point is the likelihood of trading established players like Griffey, or budding superstars like Kearns & Zambrano in your own division is slim. Career minor leaguers or fringe talent, yes. Stars, no.


Kevin Millwood to the Phillies for Johnny Estrada

. You make the "10" trade with the Cubs and, while you get more talent in return, that player you traded away helps the Cubs make up three games. .

My theory is that if the Reds turn down that "10" offer for Kearns, the Cubs go shopping elsewhere to get that OF they need with the trading chips they have in hand. So, another team ends up getting that "10" (as opposed to the Reds), and the Cubs still gain 3 games in the standings.

I think your scenerio would only apply in a select few cases, like if you have a Randy Johnson type to trade. There's maybe 10-15 ultra-elite players that perhaps the buyer couldn't get equivilant quality elsewhere. Kearns isn't one of them.

Still, even if I am trading one of those ultra-elite players, I worry about what I'm getting back more than I worry about filling the hole of a competitor.