PDA

View Full Version : Would You Do This Deal With The Tribe?



Krusty
01-22-2006, 10:50 AM
Reds trade OF Austin Kearns to the Tribe for LHP Jermey Sowers?

With the Tribe willing to trade OF Coca Crisp to the Red Sox for 3rd baseman Andy Marte and RHP Mota, they could be looking for an outfielder. They are in discussions with the Phillies for OF Jason Michael but there is no guarantee that deal would go down.

If you're the Reds, would you part with Kearns in order to get Sowers?

KronoRed
01-22-2006, 11:33 AM
Yes.

They wouldn't.

dougflynn23
01-22-2006, 01:47 PM
:) Cleveland would never make that trade. I'm not sure they would trade Sowers for Adam Dunn. That's no slam on Adam Dunn, just how valuable a potential stud pitcher is to a team who will live or die with how they develop internal talent like the Indians have committed to. The sad thing is, Sowers and Scott Kazmir would be in our rotation in 2006 had Jim Bowden not been our GM and spent their money on David Espinosa, Dane Sardinha, and Dustin Moseley.

M2
01-22-2006, 02:34 PM
Yes.

They wouldn't.

What Krono said.

Though I should add that if Cleveland really wants a power hitting corner OF then it's a fair offer, just that teams are climbing way too far up the butts of their top prospects these days.

M2
01-22-2006, 02:35 PM
:) Cleveland would never make that trade. I'm not sure they would trade Sowers for Adam Dunn. That's no slam on Adam Dunn, just how valuable a potential stud pitcher is to a team who will live or die with how they develop internal talent like the Indians have committed to. The sad thing is, Sowers and Scott Kazmir would be in our rotation in 2006 had Jim Bowden not been our GM and spent their money on David Espinosa, Dane Sardinha, and Dustin Moseley.

Don't forget to include Allen and Lindner in there. They controlled the purse strings.

buckeyenut
01-22-2006, 03:27 PM
Actually, Sowers, while a nice top of the rotation prospect is still a pitching prospect with all the inherent risk. Given the fact that I read something about CLE wanting to find another OF BEFORE they deal Crisp, and the big need at 3B for CLE, OB needs to pick up the phone right now and make the offer. Who knows? They just might bite.

Hondo
01-22-2006, 04:07 PM
:) Cleveland would never make that trade. I'm not sure they would trade Sowers for Adam Dunn. That's no slam on Adam Dunn, just how valuable a potential stud pitcher is to a team who will live or die with how they develop internal talent like the Indians have committed to. The sad thing is, Sowers and Scott Kazmir would be in our rotation in 2006 had Jim Bowden not been our GM and spent their money on David Espinosa, Dane Sardinha, and Dustin Moseley.

I'm sorry, are you saying Dunn wouldn't net Sowers? Excuse me if I get a 'lil miffed but I wouldn't "Just" accept Sowers from Cleveland for OF Adam Dunn.
Now, Sean Casey should have netted LHP Oliver Perez, but instead an incompetent GM settled for LHP Dave Williams...

Adam Dunn is the cornerstone for Cincinnati, and now that the New Ownership has taken over....Don't look for Dunner to be playing in another city...

Yeah, Sowers, Sabethia, and Westbrook, and I will give you Dunn, and Womack....

Yeah, that is how absurd "The Tribe wouldn't give up Sowers for Dunn." is...

If that ever happened, and it was a straight up deal...and Shapiro said No to Dan O, Shapiro would be fired the very next day...

JaredRoberts.com

MikeS21
01-22-2006, 04:50 PM
:) Cleveland would never make that trade. I'm not sure they would trade Sowers for Adam Dunn. That's no slam on Adam Dunn, just how valuable a potential stud pitcher is to a team who will live or die with how they develop internal talent like the Indians have committed to. The sad thing is, Sowers and Scott Kazmir would be in our rotation in 2006 had Jim Bowden not been our GM and spent their money on David Espinosa, Dane Sardinha, and Dustin Moseley.
Except BOTH of those guys were high school pitchers at the time, who the Reds had no business taking the risks on.

M2
01-22-2006, 05:10 PM
Except BOTH of those guys were high school pitchers at the time, who the Reds had no business taking the risks on.

Two things to take into consideration with those two picks. Kazmir was considered the best arm in the 2002 draft. I still think the right pick was princeton's suggestion of Jeff Francis, but Kazmir did fit the Kerry Wood/Josh Beckett profile of pure dominance.

Sowers was a #20 pick and the Reds had a well-regarded system at the time (though obviously that was mostly due to position talent). Once you get past 15 picks, the draft becomes a lot less certain, which makes a HS a better bet in relative terms than it is higher in the first round.

Only five of the next 20 guys taken have really amounted to much and some could still go either way.

So they were fairly solid high risk investments had the Reds actually invested.

VI_RedsFan
01-22-2006, 05:21 PM
Now, Sean Casey should have netted LHP Oliver Perez, but instead an incompetent GM settled for LHP Dave Williams...

God I'm tired of hearing this. Listen man, the Pirates never would've given up Perez for Casey. I don't think even Wily Mo or Austin would've been enough to get him. The best the Reds were gonna get from the Pirates for Sean was Williams. They wouldn't even have been able to get Fogg or Wells for him.

M2
01-22-2006, 06:27 PM
The best the Reds were gonna get from the Pirates for Sean was Williams. They wouldn't even have been able to get Fogg or Wells for him.

Then they should have kept Casey and dealt Kearns or Pena.

BEETTLEBUG
01-22-2006, 06:38 PM
Yes I would probable do Kearns for Sowers but I don't think Cleveland would do it. I read on MLB rumors B. Arroyo was rumored to Tampa Bay so why not try to acquire him! What would we give up?

VI_RedsFan
01-22-2006, 08:18 PM
Then they should have kept Casey and dealt Kearns or Pena.

Yep, maybe they should've. But my point was that the people on this board who think Oliver Perez could've been had for Casey are wrong.

dougflynn23
01-22-2006, 09:25 PM
I'm sorry, are you saying Dunn wouldn't net Sowers? Excuse me if I get a 'lil miffed but I wouldn't "Just" accept Sowers from Cleveland for OF Adam Dunn.

Now, Sean Casey should have netted LHP Oliver Perez, but instead an incompetent GM settled for LHP Dave Williams...

Adam Dunn is the cornerstone for Cincinnati, and now that the New Ownership has taken over....Don't look for Dunner to be playing in another city...

Yeah, that is how absurd "The Tribe wouldn't give up Sowers for Dunn." is...

If that ever happened, and it was a straight up deal...and Shapiro said No to Dan O, Shapiro would be fired the very next day...

:) Yes, I am saying that I don't think that Mark Shapiro would trade Jeremy Sowers straight up for Adam Dunn. Not that it wouldn't be a good deal for the Indians on the field, but it would go against everything that makes the Indians a success story and Mark Shapiro the best GM out there (IMO). The reason they wouldn't make that trade has nothing to do with performance, but with financial balance. If the Reds took Aaron Boone along with Sowers, the Indians would do the deal. Mark Shapiro would not add $9M to his budget and give up a commodity like Sowers. It would be like Dan O'Brien trading Homer Bailey for Lance Berkman. Might be a great trade today, but GM's just don't make those types of trades. I agree Dunn is our cornerstone, and he should be locked up long term.

Regarding Casey for Williams, Dan O'Brien got what he could for an overweight, underperforming player with a $8.5M albatross around his neck. It would have taken Adam Dunn to have gotten Oliver Perez in a down year for Perez.

SteelSD
01-23-2006, 02:35 AM
:) Yes, I am saying that I don't think that Mark Shapiro would trade Jeremy Sowers straight up for Adam Dunn. Not that it wouldn't be a good deal for the Indians on the field, but it would go against everything that makes the Indians a success story and Mark Shapiro the best GM out there (IMO). The reason they wouldn't make that trade has nothing to do with performance, but with financial balance. If the Reds took Aaron Boone along with Sowers, the Indians would do the deal. Mark Shapiro would not add $9M to his budget and give up a commodity like Sowers. It would be like Dan O'Brien trading Homer Bailey for Lance Berkman. Might be a great trade today, but GM's just don't make those types of trades. I agree Dunn is our cornerstone, and he should be locked up long term.

Point of order- Mark Shapiro has not rebuilt the Indians by turning a goodly portion of internal prospects into MLB players (they had only four internal contributors on that team last season). He's not "build from within". He's wheel-and-deal. And if he needs something big, he'd be silly to latch his claws into a prospect rather than ship him out for a guy who can put him over the top.

Shapiro has done an exceptional job of turning spendy MLB talent into high-level on-the-cusp prospects. But I fail to see why he wouldn't know that when a team gets close, sometimes they need to do the opposite.


Regarding Casey for Williams, Dan O'Brien got what he could for an overweight, underperforming player with a $8.5M albatross around his neck. It would have taken Adam Dunn to have gotten Oliver Perez in a down year for Perez.

Casey's contract was hardly an "albatross" coming into the season (his last under contract). Dan O'Brien didn't "get what he could" for Sean Casey considering that he dealt him at a value low point. He got what he would take. That's a more than subtle difference.

dougdirt
01-23-2006, 02:42 AM
SteelsD, I have suggested it before and will again. Ever occur to you that Lindner wouldnt allow Casey to be traded at his high point because he put people in the seats and he thought everyone would hate him if he moved a fan favorite? It seems pretty much like something he would do to me. Odds are you know exactly what happen and will ignore the fact that someone disagrees with you, but I believe that is one reason it happened the way it did.

SteelSD
01-23-2006, 03:31 AM
SteelsD, I have suggested it before and will again. Ever occur to you that Lindner wouldnt allow Casey to be traded at his high point because he put people in the seats and he thought everyone would hate him if he moved a fan favorite? It seems pretty much like something he would do to me. Odds are you know exactly what happen and will ignore the fact that someone disagrees with you, but I believe that is one reason it happened the way it did.

You've played the "I know what happened but you couldn't possibly" card before. But that's just you making up stuff because it fits your slant. Convenient pseudo-logic. Like trying to set up an argument you can't possibly lose. Dunno' where you think that actually works, but it's not here.

And they are excuses. Don't mislead yourself that you're working with anything but your own assumptions and baseless supposition. Curious, because you consistently chide others for not having the right to draw their own conclusions- even when those conclusions are reasonable and are drawn from reality.

If I were to ask you, "What evidence do you have to suggest that a Sean Casey deal was prevented by Carl Lindner in 2004?", what would you respond with? I think I know what you'd respond with, but I'd rather hear it from you.

You've constantly tried to position the fact that Castellini wants to keep a closer eye on O'Brien as some kind of reason to believe that O'Brien now has more autonomy than he's ever had before. That is, of course, your slant because you don't seem to think that Dan O'Brien has been responsible for any of the bad things Dan O'Brien has done. And yet, Castellini made it a point to tell the world that O'Brien knows that things haven't gone well on his watch. HIS watch. Not "Carl Lindner's watch". Not "John Allen's watch". DAN O'BRIEN'S WATCH.

And you can believe what you like, but if Sean Casey wasn't dealt before because he was a "fan favorite", his SLG decrease in 2005 wouldn't necessarily change that because your average fan doesn't give a rip about Slugging Percentage. In any case, Sean Casey- while likeable- wasn't a butts-in-seats type of guy. Few in baseball are. He's never been one of them.

Lindner and Co. had no issue approving the trade of a similarly likeable Aaron Boone, so why in the heck would they cling to Sean Casey as if he were Ken Griffey Jr. in his prime? Makes no sense whatsoever unless you're trying to excuse away O'Brien's inability to move a very moveable commodity for more value than he ended up getting for the depreciated version.

We know there has been a market for Sean Casey. History tells us this. Worse players with worse contracts change hands consistently. Yet the two most seen excuses for not cashing in on a productive Casey are:

1. The assumption that there was no market for a productive Sean Casey.
2. The assumption that Lindner and/or Allen didn't want a Sean Casey dealt.

Excuse #1 falls apart on merit. Excuse #2 (which is really just a bait-and-switch when Excuse #1 falls apart) gets atomized the moment Sean Casey is actually dealt. Oh gee...that just happened, didn't it?

Heck, Paul Wilson (who was praised up and down for his "leadership" when O'Brien re-signed him last offseason) was a guy the Rangers were VERY interested in before the deadline last year and O'Brien couldn't get a deal worked out with a team who was actually interested in trading for him. Couldn't get it done.

Heck, that should should be the epitaph of Dan O'Brien's career as a General Manager- "Couldn't get it done."

Aronchis
01-23-2006, 03:52 AM
You've played the "I know what happened but you couldn't possibly" card before. But that's just you making up stuff because it fits your slant. Convenient pseudo-logic. Like trying to set up an argument you can't possibly lose. Dunno' where you think that actually works, but it's not here.

And they are excuses. Don't mislead yourself that you're working with anything but your own assumptions and baseless supposition. Curious, because you consistently chide others for not having the right to draw their own conclusions- even when those conclusions are reasonable and are drawn from reality.

If I were to ask you, "What evidence do you have to suggest that a Sean Casey deal was prevented by Carl Lindner in 2004?", what would you respond with? I think I know what you'd respond with, but I'd rather hear it from you.

You've constantly tried to position the fact that Castellini wants to keep a closer eye on O'Brien as some kind of reason to believe that O'Brien now has more autonomy than he's ever had before. That is, of course, your slant because you don't seem to think that Dan O'Brien has been responsible for any of the bad things Dan O'Brien has done. And yet, Castellini made it a point to tell the world that O'Brien knows that things haven't gone well on his watch. HIS watch. Not "Carl Lindner's watch". Not "John Allen's watch". DAN O'BRIEN'S WATCH.

And you can believe what you like, but if Sean Casey wasn't dealt before because he was a "fan favorite", his SLG decrease in 2005 wouldn't necessarily change that because your average fan doesn't give a rip about Slugging Percentage. In any case, Sean Casey- while likeable- wasn't a butts-in-seats type of guy. Few in baseball are. He's never been one of them.

Lindner and Co. had no issue approving the trade of a similarly likeable Aaron Boone, so why in the heck would they cling to Sean Casey as if he were Ken Griffey Jr. in his prime? Makes no sense whatsoever unless you're trying to excuse away O'Brien's inability to move a very moveable commodity for more value than he ended up getting for the depreciated version.

We know there has been a market for Sean Casey. History tells us this. Worse players with worse contracts change hands consistently. Yet the two most seen excuses for not cashing in on a productive Casey are:

1. The assumption that there was no market for a productive Sean Casey.
2. The assumption that Lindner and/or Allen didn't want a Sean Casey dealt.

Excuse #1 falls apart on merit. Excuse #2 (which is really just a bait-and-switch when Excuse #1 falls apart) gets atomized the moment Sean Casey is actually dealt. Oh gee...that just happened, didn't it?

Heck, Paul Wilson (who was praised up and down for his "leadership" when O'Brien re-signed him last offseason) was a guy the Rangers were VERY interested in before the deadline last year and O'Brien couldn't get a deal worked out with a team who was actually interested in trading for him. Couldn't get it done.

Heck, that should should be the epitaph of Dan O'Brien's career as a General Manager- "Couldn't get it done."

Hows that "atomized"? Lindner was more or else gone by that point.

Sorry Steel, whispers in Cincy were everywhere. Griffey got out, Casey and Graves didn't.

SteelSD
01-23-2006, 04:00 AM
Hows that "atomized"? Lindner was more or else gone by that point.

You pretty much think Lindner was effectively gone before he even hired Dan O'Brien.

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing any more.

Aronchis
01-23-2006, 05:26 AM
You pretty much think Lindner was effectively gone before he even hired Dan O'Brien.

I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing any more.


The fact is, Lindner announces he is leaving, Casey is gone. That is reality. During the 2004 summer, DanO had no trouble dealing Lidle or Jones, but yet that old core of Casey,Graves stayed intact though rumors of trades were swirling. Why didnt they get traded(with Wilson as well)? I don't know, but you hear the speculation and rumors. DanO didn't seem to have a problem trading Joe Randa. Any new GM would most likely prefer to trade away those veteren pieces that had out lived its usefullness(which Casey and Graves had in 2004). Why is it, when Lindner steps aside, Casey goes. Strange, very very strange.

I didn't say Lindner was effectively gone before DanO, but that he was a transitional owner that got a weak GM to pull his strings because the end of his tenure was coming. Carl simply didn't want to shake things up.

dougdirt
01-23-2006, 06:47 AM
SteelsD, so its ok for you to assume that Lindner didnt have say in Obrien's trades or lack of them, but I am wrong for assuming the opposite, when in reality neither of us have any clue?

I dont want to argue the fact that people werent interested in Casey or even the fact that people were or were not traded. I just want you to tell me why you can assume one thing without having any knowledge of the situation, but if I assume the opposite, I am wrong?

You ramble on and on about this, that and the other. You never answer the question though. There is enough out there to lead me to believe that Lindner and Allen had more to say with deals than stuff that is out there to tell me that they didnt. It is fine if you believe Obrien is incompetant to be the GM. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

You dropped in the "you have played this card before" line in your response. Yeah, I did play it because you never answered the question that went along with it. You claim that I play it because it slants to the points Im trying to make. Is it not the exact same thing you are doing by saying that Allen and Lindner didnt make Obrien go out and do certain things? I believe it is exactly the same thing.

As for any evidence that I have or dont in the case of why Casey was not dealt in 2004, I have none. Do you have evidence that shows the opposite?

As far as Casey putting butts in seats, well he does. I know quite a few people who go because they love Sean and his all out play and attitude. Personally, I could care less about any of that. I want to see good baseball. Sean Casey wasnt helping put that on the field.

Not that I need to put it out there once again, but it seems that you want to look over the fact that once Lindner publically acknowledges he is selling the team, Casey is gone. Coincidence? Yeah it very well could be. It also very well could be that Lindner was holding Obrien from making a move with Casey. Neither of us can prove that the other thing didnt happen. You can spew out there was a market for Casey, this team was interested, that team was interested....that doesnt mean anything as far as evidence that someone was or was not pulling strings with the GM.

SteelSD
01-23-2006, 07:52 AM
SteelsD, so its ok for you to assume that Lindner didnt have say in Obrien's trades or lack of them, but I am wrong for assuming the opposite, when in reality neither of us have any clue?

A General Manager has a specific function. Can owners impact the effectivity of a GM with too much interference? Certainly. But they're exceptionally involved owners. Meddlers.

I've not once seen anything from Carl Lindner that so much as suggests that he's a meddling owner who wants to be involved in player personnel decisions. He approved a trade of Larkin that Larkin stopped using his 10-and-5 rights. Lindner even approved a Griffey trade that was quashed by Phil Nevin. Both Lindner and Allen had to approve the trades of a productive Jose Guillen and the likeable Aaron Boone in 2003. In fact, they ordered the INTERIM GM's to move salary and get cash in return. Neither Lindner nor Allen was sitting in the background telling Kullman who to go after. Neither has that kind of baseball knowledge. All either was saying is "get this team to within budget". Even their alleged refusal to spend money on a Scott Rolen or Chuck Finley deal was driven by money- not talent.

The preponderance of evidence tells us that even though Lindner and/or Allen may have input into the financial side of things neither has ever really given a rat's behind as to the players being moved out or in. They even gave Dan O'Brien an additional 15 million bucks last offseason to help the club. There's simply no reason to expect that they were telling O'Brien who to spend that cash on.


I dont want to argue the fact that people werent interested in Casey or even the fact that people were or were not traded. I just want you to tell me why you can assume one thing without having any knowledge of the situation, but if I assume the opposite, I am wrong?

I can argue something like "Casey had real value" because baseball history tells us that. I keep saying that bad players and bad contracts are consistently moved for value by good GM's. I can assume that particular thing because I have evidence that similar things have happened- and happened consistently.

And worse, your positions NEED evidence. You argue that this or that has actually happened- even when all the evidence points to the contrary. Yet you continually ask others to prove a negative. You say, "Lindner and Allen have inhibited O'Brien's ability to do his job", yet you can't provide evidence to that effect. Then you ask someone with a contrary position to prove a negative.

Lindner and Allen approved the trades of both Barry Larkin (FAR more important to Reds fans than Sean Casey) and Ken Griffey Jr. (a real butts-in-seats guy) and then want folks to swallow the concept that Sean Casey wasn't dealt because Lindner wouldn't allow it because Sean Casey was too darned popular. And then Lindner and Allen approved a trade of Sean Casey.

I don't mean to be rude, but your position suggests a complete lack of ability to understand situational dynamics.


You ramble on and on about this, that and the other. You never answer the question though. There is enough out there to lead me to believe that Lindner and Allen had more to say with deals than stuff that is out there to tell me that they didnt. It is fine if you believe Obrien is incompetant to be the GM. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I've answered any and every question you've ever asked if it's actually relevant.

Yet I still haven't figured out what you mean by saying that "There is enough out there to lead me to believe that Lindner and Allen had more to say with deals than stuff that is out there to tell me that they didn't."

If you have evidence, then by all means POST IT.


You dropped in the "you have played this card before" line in your response. Yeah, I did play it because you never answered the question that went along with it. You claim that I play it because it slants to the points Im trying to make. Is it not the exact same thing you are doing by saying that Allen and Lindner didnt make Obrien go out and do certain things? I believe it is exactly the same thing.

Of course you believe that. Logic dictates that you believe that in error.


As for any evidence that I have or dont in the case of why Casey was not dealt in 2004, I have none. Do you have evidence that shows the opposite?

I don't need to show you proprietary evidence for you to realize that Casey was tradeable in 2004.


As far as Casey putting butts in seats, well he does. I know quite a few people who go because they love Sean and his all out play and attitude. Personally, I could care less about any of that. I want to see good baseball. Sean Casey wasnt helping put that on the field.

No, Sean Casey doesn't. Winning baseball games puts butts in seats. Rare baseball players put butts in seats over the short term. You don't know anyone who wouldn't go to baseball games if the Reds produced a championship team without Sean Casey.


Not that I need to put it out there once again, but it seems that you want to look over the fact that once Lindner publically acknowledges he is selling the team, Casey is gone. Coincidence? Yeah it very well could be. It also very well could be that Lindner was holding Obrien from making a move with Casey. Neither of us can prove that the other thing didnt happen. You can spew out there was a market for Casey, this team was interested, that team was interested....that doesnt mean anything as far as evidence that someone was or was not pulling strings with the GM.

Right. Considering that Lindner and Allen had already demonstrated that they'd approve a trade involving pretty much anyone, they only approved a Casey trade after Lindner announced that he was selling the team.

Seriously, you need to put your stuff up against a logic check.

dougdirt
01-23-2006, 08:53 AM
Well the long post I just made didnt show up becuase I had to log back in becuase I had been typing it for so long.

Basically it said this.

You never answer the question of why you can believe on thing, that you have no PROOF of, while I believe an opposite thing, which I have no PROOF of, but you are right and I am wrong. PROOF is something telling me that Lindner and Allen did not influence moves. Not examples of where they were willing to do this or that in the past. A quote where one of those three people says it. We arent going to see it.

As far as Casey not puting butts in seats, he does. I gave you a very simple example. If it was to complicated for you then I am sorry. If I have friends who go to games to see Sean Casey hustle his butt off, so did other people outside of my small group of friends. You cant argue against that.

Basically I am done argueing over something so stupid.

I believe Lindner and Allen influenced a lot of what Obrien did.

You believe Obrien acted alone.

No one on this message board knows the truth, becuase John Allen, Dan Obrien and Carl Lindner dont post on here.

gonelong
01-23-2006, 10:33 AM
Well the long post I just made didnt show up becuase I had to log back in becuase I had been typing it for so long.

That happens from time to time. When I know I am about to drop a real long post I generally type it into a word processor first, and past it into Redszone. The board has swallowed a couple of good rants I had going. :)



You never answer the question of why you can believe on thing, that you have no PROOF of, while I believe an opposite thing, which I have no PROOF of, but you are right and I am wrong. PROOF is something telling me that Lindner and Allen did not influence moves. Not examples of where they were willing to do this or that in the past. A quote where one of those three people says it. We arent going to see it.

It was answered quite well IMO. We cannot know conclusively, but we can take the bits and pieces we do know and make an educated guess as to which is likely.


As far as Casey not puting butts in seats, he does. I gave you a very simple example. If it was to complicated for you then I am sorry. If I have friends who go to games to see Sean Casey hustle his butt off, so did other people outside of my small group of friends. You cant argue against that.

IMO he doesn't put enough butts in the seats to make any tangible difference to the club. I was suprised at the complete lack of weeping and gnashing of teeth when Casey was dealt. Nobody even seemed to care.




I believe Lindner and Allen influenced a lot of what Obrien did.

You believe Obrien acted alone.

No one on this message board knows the truth, becuase John Allen, Dan Obrien and Carl Lindner dont post on here.

Well, if we have to have absolute proof of everything to discuss it and form an opinion, we might as well just shut the board down. Based on a good bit of evidence we do have, one is much more likely than the other.

GL

dougdirt
01-23-2006, 04:06 PM
Told you the arguement was stupid!

I guess you are happy now that Dan Obrien has been fired.
I am fine with it as long as Kullman does his job well.

westofyou
01-23-2006, 04:07 PM
I guess you are happy now that Dan Obrien has been fired.


Why yes we are.

Thanks for asking.

dougdirt
01-23-2006, 04:17 PM
westofyou, that was more toward SteelsD, but I figure just about everyone here was happy with the firing of Obrien.

deltachi8
01-23-2006, 05:02 PM
Now, Sean Casey should have netted LHP Oliver Perez, but instead an incompetent GM settled for LHP Dave Williams...



On what planet? cause that never happens on this one....

As to the orginal question. Without thinking twice I send Kearns to Cle in that deal....problem is CLE won't do it..

dougdirt
01-23-2006, 05:10 PM
Ok, Marty Brennamen just said that he believes that Obrien had lots of pressure to sign Milton and that the choice was not his, but that it came from above in his opinion. There is my belated opinion from someone more in the know that myself. Not that it means a whole lot, or even matters at this point.

SteelSD
01-23-2006, 05:52 PM
Well the long post I just made didnt show up becuase I had to log back in becuase I had been typing it for so long.

Basically it said this.

You never answer the question of why you can believe on thing, that you have no PROOF of, while I believe an opposite thing, which I have no PROOF of, but you are right and I am wrong. PROOF is something telling me that Lindner and Allen did not influence moves. Not examples of where they were willing to do this or that in the past. A quote where one of those three people says it. We arent going to see it.

I've answered your questions over and over. But let's break it down for you...

When you see a pattern of behavior, which is more reasonable?

A. An assumption that said behavior will continue.
B. An assumption that completely opposite behavior will suddenly begin and then continue.

Lindner and Allen have demonstrated a long-standing pattern of approving trades regardless of the players involved- including franchise stalwart Barry Larkin and a true butts-in-seats Ken Griffey Jr. They've never demonstrated the propensity to point their GM's in the direction of one player or the other. They've only become involved in the financial details of deals. That's a completely normal part of any business.

Yet you want to turn that on it's ear and expect others to swallow the concept that Carl Lindner turned from benign owner caring about finances to a meddlesome dictator who directed O'Brien as to who to go after and who to trade. That's a completely implausible scenario.

O'Brien was handed 15 Million bucks last season. No one was sitting above him pulling O'Brien's marionette strings to direct him toward one player or another. If that were the case, then you don't NEED a GM in the first place. There's simply no evidence to back your contention. And considering that your assumption runs contrary to established behavior patterns, you NEED evidence to that effect. Lacking that evidence, your only defense is the last bastion of the unwinnable argument- asking someone else to prove a negative.

Sorry, but if you're going to expect someone to swallow the implausible concept that Bigfoot exists, you need to provide evidence to that effect. Ditto for Nessie, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Keebler Elves, and middle-aged women who carry no emotional baggage.


As far as Casey not puting butts in seats, he does. I gave you a very simple example. If it was to complicated for you then I am sorry. If I have friends who go to games to see Sean Casey hustle his butt off, so did other people outside of my small group of friends. You cant argue against that.

You don't know any reasonable person who would stay away from a championship ballclub because Sean Casey isn't on it. You might think you do, but you don't.


Basically I am done argueing over something so stupid.

Good.


I believe Lindner and Allen influenced a lot of what Obrien did.

You believe Obrien acted alone.

No one on this message board knows the truth, becuase John Allen, Dan Obrien and Carl Lindner dont post on here.

We know enough to understand that my position is the most plausible given the evidence we have while yours is half-baked supposition based on nothing but a misunderstanding of situational dynamics. Appears that Bob Castellini agrees considering that Dan O'Brien's employment was just terminated after things didn't go well on HIS watch.

Hondo
01-25-2006, 01:53 AM
#1 Krivisky had the GM job until Carl Stepped in and Stopped the paperwork, then hired Dan O'Brein...

#2 Can we all just agree that Dan O'Brein is Incompetent...Thankyou...

Let me say this...

Ignorance is Bliss...

And Dan O'Brein is "Bliss"

JaredRoberts.com

Krusty
01-25-2006, 02:07 AM
Back to the Tribe proposal, would you do a RHP Jake Westbrook for OF Austin Kearns?

harangatang
01-25-2006, 02:30 AM
Back to the Tribe proposal, would you do a RHP Jake Westbrook for OF Austin Kearns?

I'd take a chance on Westbrook, the Reds need all the pitching they can get.