PDA

View Full Version : We turned down Matt Clement for Kearns



Redus
01-25-2006, 03:02 AM
Now on rotoworld it says we shot down a deal last week that wouldve sent Austin to Cleveland while Boston would send us Clement. Thoughts?

BEETTLEBUG
01-25-2006, 03:15 AM
I would TRADE Pena for Clement. I would rather keep Kearns.

dougdirt
01-25-2006, 03:39 AM
Clement is nothing special. Neither is Austin Kearns really. I would rather keep Pena than Kearns. I wouldnt trade either for Matt Clement. His strikeout numbers dropped off considerably this past season, not to mention his ERA was higher than the league average.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 05:06 AM
I don't buy it, the Sox aren't that desperate.

RedLegSuperStar
01-25-2006, 05:42 AM
Now on rotoworld it says we shot down a deal last week that wouldve sent Austin to Cleveland while Boston would send us Clement. Thoughts?

I think you miss read it:

According to the Boston Herald, the Reds are interested in getting back into the Coco Crisp deal, making a nine-player swap a possibility.
We're still not sure of the details here, but as reported earlier, Matt Clement would likely go to Cincinnati and Austin Kearns would be sent to Cleveland. We assume Andy Marte would still go Cleveland. Also, the agreed-upon Jason Michaels-for-Arthur Rhodes swap would probably be killed off.

Rotoworld.com

Red Heeler
01-25-2006, 08:34 AM
How about trading Kearns for Crisp and leave Boston out all together. The Reds could desperately use a CF with range, too.

Jpup
01-25-2006, 08:41 AM
From Today's Boston rag:

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=122874


Because reliever Guillermo Mota reportedly failed his physical in Cleveland yesterday, the Red Sox will have to restructure their deal in order to acquire Indians outfielder Coco Crisp, according to baseball sources.
Mota’s right shoulder concerned Indians officials enough to reject him, placing the Crisp deal on hold, if not in peril. Mota had an inflamed right elbow last May and was diagnosed with shoulder tendinitis in September.
Mota, who was acquired by the Red Sox from the Marlins in a November trade, was part of a three-player package that included top prospect Andy Marte, a third baseman, and minor league catcher Kelly Shoppach. The Red Sox were to receive Crisp, who would replace departed center fielder Johnny Damon, as well as reliever David Riske and catcher Josh Bard.

The Indians were also going to trade left-handed reliever Arthur Rhodes to Philadelphia for outfielder Jason Michaels, who would replace Crisp. That deal is still on, and the Phillies were told by the Indians that the Crisp-Sox trade was not dead.
The Indians would need another reliever, but it is not clear who they have targeted. Manny Delcarmen’s name has been heard often but the Indians may have their eye on another prospect. They are not interested in new Red Sox relievers Julian Tavarez or Rudy Seanez.
It is believed Sox general manager Theo Epstein and the Indians’ front office last night were trying to restructure the deal and get the right ingredients to satisfy Cleveland.
It is also believed that the Reds are interested in reviving the three-team talks that would produce a nine-player swap, in which Matt Clement would go to Cincinnati.

I wouldn't mind having Clement, but I prefer not to trade Austin Kearns for him. I fear that's what is going to happen.

RedFanAlways1966
01-25-2006, 08:50 AM
Why not trade Kearns? Especially for a pitcher. It is not like Matt Clement is Dave Williams.

PITCHING people. That is what this team needs... not outfielders. Don't believe it... then check the pitching stats of this team since 2000.

I like Austin too. But this team needs pitching. Pitching, pitching, pitching. Not sure of the truthfulness behind this story, but this team needs pitchers. Not Eric Milton or Dave Williams, but Clement would be a step in the right direction.

lollipopcurve
01-25-2006, 09:00 AM
Clement costs $18 million over the next 2 years, and his performance last year degenerated badly in the 2nd half. I would add that according to 2nd hand rumors via a co-worker of mine who has a relative who works in a posh Boston watering hole, Clement is a thirsty guy, if you know what I mean. Not that there's anything wrong with social drinking, but when people start to talk about you....

I'd look elsewhere.

Ravenlord
01-25-2006, 09:01 AM
pre-concussion Clement this is pretty simple...post-concussion Clement i'm not sure about, but by the time you know wheather or not he's recovered, he's either more valuable or Jimmy Haynes.

Jpup
01-25-2006, 09:04 AM
Why not trade Kearns?

I'm bias. He is my favorite Red. Why? I don't know.:cool:

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 09:06 AM
Kearns + a minor leaguer of their choice + Milton for Clement

:)

Jpup
01-25-2006, 09:08 AM
Kearns + a minor leaguer of their choice + Milton for Clement

:)

you really want to get rid of that Milton character don't you? ;)

Falls City Beer
01-25-2006, 09:19 AM
Yeah, Clement's expensive and he fell off the table pretty hard. I'm all for gambling--just not with that kind of cash commitment.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 09:22 AM
you really want to get rid of that Milton character don't you? ;)
Does it show? :D

Unassisted
01-25-2006, 09:25 AM
Change of scenery would be good for both players. Does Clement's salary use up all of the surplus in the budget, though?

Falls City Beer
01-25-2006, 09:26 AM
Change of scenery would be good for both players. Does Clement's salary use up all of the surplus in the budget, though?

And then some. (Unless another salary is shipped out).

zombie-a-go-go
01-25-2006, 09:27 AM
Yeah, Clement's expensive and he fell off the table pretty hard. I'm all for gambling--just not with that kind of cash commitment.

What he said. The cash committment is the killer in this deal; otherwise, both Kearns and Clement are question marks as to whether they'll bounce back, and we've already got plenty of decent bats.

If you could find some way to lessen the financial strain, like the Milton add-in mentioned above it'd be a great trade, but unless BOS gets to unload some payroll I don't see them swapping Clement for Kearns.

CLE needs relievers - maybe we could throw them Bubba if they'll take Milton and eat half of his contract? Wagner for a 75% meal? Though I don't know what Wagner's stock is right now.

MWM
01-25-2006, 09:34 AM
I'd do it if they agreed to take Milton's contract. I'm with FCB and raven. The drop off after getting hit in the head worries me. If it weren't for that, I'd be all over it. Although, I suspect that were it not for that, the Sox would have interest in trading him. I think they know he's damaged goods now.

NC Reds
01-25-2006, 09:40 AM
Kearns is my boy. Offer Pena for Clement.

John McGwire
01-25-2006, 10:01 AM
I would do the Kearns for Clement deal in a minute. But with the Casey trade done, I wouldn't lose both Casey and Kearns.

Red_BlueDevil
01-25-2006, 10:12 AM
First off, I'm against trading Kearns -- despite what the media seems to think we do not have a surplus of outfielders anymore -- Dunn may not want to play first base but it sounds like he will.

That said, if we were able to trade Kearns + Milton to get back Clement, why not? It's a wash monetarily for Boston and they pick up the RF bat to replace Trot "my name is much better than my actual game" Nixon or to trade to Cleveland (with other parts) for Crisp.

Of course, I think think ALL trades should be on hold until the new GM comes in. Let him or her decide the team to put on the field.

Johnny Footstool
01-25-2006, 10:18 AM
If Boston picks up a good portion of Clement's contract, I'd do it.

redsfan30
01-25-2006, 10:21 AM
From Brad Kullman's comments over the past 2 days and this the second published rumor about a trade, it looks like a trade of Austin Kearns is all but inevitable...at least to me it does. It looks like there will be a rotation pitcher coming back regardless of who the trading partner is.

Now the question is this...who plays the outfield in place of Kearns? Denorfia? Do we go out and get another outfielder? Freel?

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 10:24 AM
Now the question is this...who plays the outfield in place of Kearns? Denorfia? Do we go out and get another outfielder? Freel?
Womack and Rich will take 2nd, Freel will go to the OF.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 10:27 AM
From Brad Kullman's comments over the past 2 days and this the second published rumor about a trade, it looks like a trade of Austin Kearns is all but inevitable...at least to me it does. It looks like there will be a rotation pitcher coming back regardless of who the trading partner is.

Now the question is this...who plays the outfield in place of Kearns? Denorfia? Do we go out and get another outfielder? Freel?

I agree, Kearns is all but gone. Now the questions are: who do we get in return, does anyone go with Kearns, and who plays the OF.

From what I've heard so far, the options on Kearns (that have been reported are: Matt Clement, Jake Westbrook, Jason Marquis). I'd have to think that when Kearns does go Freel and Denorfia are the most likely to replace him. If Freel wins the job, I think you're looking at a lot of Tony Womack at 2B = bad.

I was kind of hoping that if Kearns was traded, we'd get a pitcher back and then be able to shop for a first baseman and let Adam go back to the OF with Jr and WMP.

It'd be nice if Aurilia or Womack were packaged with Kearns to BOS, or StL to rid us of one of them (and free up more money). I'd take an AA reliever in return for including them (or cash).

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 10:30 AM
Maybe we could do a Kearns and Weathers or Mercker, trade to BOS for Clement, Shoppach and cash. That would make a lot of sense for both teams.

ED44
01-25-2006, 10:31 AM
I like a healthy Mota (unfortunately, it doesn't sound like he is) & Marte for Kearns better than Clement.

I would like to find a way to get Marte in a deal. If EdE doesn't work out (ala Larson) we would have a potential replacement...if EdE works out (like I expect), maybe Marte could make a transition to 2B or be nice trade bait for pitching.

As for Clement, I am not too excited about him. He is a step up from what we have, but not at the price. If the Sox ate A LOT of the salary, then maybe I would...if not, no thanks.

Red_BlueDevil
01-25-2006, 10:32 AM
Now the question is this...who plays the outfield in place of Kearns? Denorfia? Do we go out and get another outfielder? Freel?

Wait a second...even if we trade Kearns we still "have" three outfielders right? Why do we have to move freel into the outfield when we could play Dunn-Jr.-Pena in the outfield. Isn't it easier to find a 1st basemen out there to take case's place?

--

And if it's inevitable that we're going to trade Kearns we should focus on what we're getting back rather than what we're giving up right? So what do we want for him?

Do we focus on a pitcher like clement or a high upside, less proven prospect?

redsfan30
01-25-2006, 10:36 AM
Say a Clement/Kearns deal does go down. A change of scenery can't hurt Matt Clement so you've got to think he's going to be an upgrade in the rotation. Put Freel in the outfield on a semi-daily basis with Chris Denorfia spelling him once or twice a week.

Like it or not, Rich Aurilia and Tony Womack are here for the 2006 season (or the first half anyway). Given the choice of the two at secondbase I'd pick Aurilia anytime. Getting lost in all the hoopla of Dan O'Brien is the fact that Brad Kullman has been quoted as saying that he is much more quick to advance a Minor Leaguer if he sees fit. Does that mean that Encarnacion doesn't have to worry about starting the year in Louisville where he might have had to if O'Brien were still here? If he's at thirdbase and Aurilia at second, that puts Womack on the bench where he belongs until late-game pinch running situations.

So here's what you'd have to start the 2006 season (which is 68 days away according to my countdown thread ;) ) .....

1. Ryan Freel-LF
2. Felipe Lopez-SS
3. Ken Griffey, Jr.-CF
4. Adam Dunn-1B
5. Wily Mo Pena-RF
6. Rich Aurilia-2B
7. Jason LaRue-C
8. Edwin Encarnacion-3B

1. Aaron Harang
2. Matt Clement
3. Brandon Claussen
4. Dave Williams
5. Eric Milton

Could we win some more games with that rosters? If the bullpen improves, I think we can.

Boss-Hog
01-25-2006, 10:37 AM
Despite his extremely disappointing 2005, I'm still not in favor of trading Kearns while his value is at an all time low. However, since it looks as if it's inevitable, I'd prefer to leave Dunn at first, slide Griffey to RF and start Denorfia in CF.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 10:38 AM
Do we focus on a pitcher like clement or a high upside, less proven prospect?

If I'm the Reds I opt for the high upside, less proven prospect for a couple reasons.

1) Obviously, the prospect will make less money, thus freeing up more money to sign other players (read: Lopez, Dunn, and Harang) to long term deals, or go out and get yourself another player you might need (first baseman, relief pitcher whatever that could potentially be a bargain as the season gets closer.

2) The prospect will be under our control for a much longer time, and that's important because I don't think the team is in a position to truly compete in the next 2 years (which is about the time we'd have with a more expensive player like Clement).

Falls City Beer
01-25-2006, 10:38 AM
Something tells me that Castellini won't smile upon tying up $18 million of this year's payroll in two pitchers whose combined ERA could hover above the 5.00 mark and whose combined OPSA could average well over .760. Add to that Griffey's $12 million and you have half the team's payroll tied up in a bunch of poor performance/bad health gambles. Ixnay, unless Boston takes on a huge salary in return.

I'd do a Kearns for Contreras, though, in a heartbeat. Contreras plus a couple of shrewd bullpen acquisitions could vault the Reds immediately into contention for the division title (don't laugh). I just don't see Clement as that kind of difference-maker.

M2
01-25-2006, 10:39 AM
Boss, I'd argue that Kearns' value isn't all that low if he can fetch Clement.

Count me as being 100% on board with this idea.

Boss-Hog
01-25-2006, 10:42 AM
Boss, I'd argue that Kearns' value isn't all that low if he can fetch Clement.

Count me as being 100% on board with this idea.
That's true and I'm surprised to hear that after his 2005, he could potentially fetch Clement, who, barring any long term health concerns, would easily be our second best pitcher (at worst). Still, if we're going to trade Kearns, I'd focus on someone cheaper, for the reasons Red Leader mentioned.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 10:42 AM
Rich 7th? try 2nd ;)

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 10:44 AM
I'd argue that his value's not all that low if he can fetch Clement.

I agree. Teams, like us fans, are hynotized by Kearns' potential. He still could be a very, very good everyday player, a potential All-Star kind of upside. That's good for us. He's been given the same value as if he were still a prospect. Seems like most teams are saying "no harm, no foul" with him and treating him like he just needs a place where he can be happy and play ball without being jerked around to succeed. That may be the case, but if you're the Reds, I think you have to take advantage of the fact that some teams are willing to give you what you're looking for in return for him without the annual performance to back it up.

lollipopcurve
01-25-2006, 10:44 AM
A change of scenery can't hurt Matt Clement

This would be his 4th team as he begins his 8th big-league season. Changing scenery is the norm for Clement. With an arm like that, you have to ask why. And you have to wonder why Boston -- with health concerns still bobbing re: Schilling and Beckett -- would be so eager to unload him.

I vote no.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 10:45 AM
I'm a bit leery if the Sox are offering Clement for him that they think Clement is seriously hurt.

M2
01-25-2006, 10:50 AM
This would be his 4th team as he begins his 8th big-league season. Changing scenery is the norm for Clement. With an arm like that, you have to ask why. And you have to wonder why Boston -- with health concerns still bobbing re: Schilling and Beckett -- would be so eager to unload him.

I vote no.

He bounced around early because it took him a while to put his game together. Then he became a free agent. Now he's available because the Sox have seven starting pitchers and need a CF.

It's not like Boston's been trying to pawn him off this offseason. This is a case of the Reds jumping in and seizing upon Boston's desperation. Cincinnati can make the Crisp deal happen if Boston ponies up the pitcher it wants. Pure opportunism and kudos to Kullman if he pulls it off.

Unassisted
01-25-2006, 10:53 AM
I'm a bit leery if the Sox are offering Clement for him that they think Clement is seriously hurt.That's why he'd have to pass a physical for the deal to go through. Hopefully, that physical includes an MRI of everything that would affect his pitching motion and a neurological test of everything that might have been affected by the shot he took to the noggin.

registerthis
01-25-2006, 10:56 AM
If Boston picks up a good portion of Clement's contract, I'd do it.

As would I.

M2
01-25-2006, 10:58 AM
That's why he'd have to pass a physical for the deal to go through. Hopefully, that physical includes an MRI of everything that would affect his pitching motion and a neurological test of everything that might have been affected by the shot he took to the noggin.

Exactly, the Reds get to look the gifthorse in the mouth, shoulder, elbow and any other place that interests them.

redsfan30
01-25-2006, 10:58 AM
Can anyone post Clement's stats both before and after he got hit by that liner?

RFS62
01-25-2006, 10:59 AM
As would I.


Me too. Although I do think Kearns can bounce back.

kbrake
01-25-2006, 11:01 AM
I think you have to make this trade right now if your the Reds. If Kearns goes out and has another real rough year I think he would lose the high value that he has somehow managed to keep ahold of. At the sametime he could explode in Boston, but thats the risk in trading him. I just think Clement would be worth that risk and I really dont think it would be that hard to get the Red Sox to pick up some of that money.

Johnny Footstool
01-25-2006, 11:01 AM
Clement is an injury concern, but Kearns isn't??? :confused:

Puffy
01-25-2006, 11:02 AM
I look at it this way - if both Kearns and Clement have career years which one would help the Reds more.

The answer to that question is obviously Clement, so yeah, I'd probably do this if the peripherals can be worked out (money, physicals, etc.)

vaticanplum
01-25-2006, 11:02 AM
I don't trust Matt Clement at all. I feel like he's spent a few years fleecing the nation, that his good days far outweigh his bad, and that the full extent of the injuries from his beaning last year aren't yet known and he's only going to get worse. Kearns can only improve. (I'm also slightly biased because I seriously believe that Clement has the worst facial hair in all of baseball. This is a terrible thing to say, but it hurts my eyes to look at him. It's so distracting. Maybe that's why I think he's so bad; I can't watch him pitch.)

Boston seems pretty eager to get rid of him. A lot of that I think has to do with his disastrous postseason outing, and some I think due to the fact that with the problems of Schilling, Wells et al., Clement was expected to be the savior of the pitching staff and he just couldn't live up to expectations. Still...I don't trust him. I don't think that GABP would be good to him.

A month ago I would have said to do it if we could throw in Milton, but now, crazy as it sounds and I know it does, I'm not even sure I'd do that. Milton's 2005 DIPS indicates that he could have a significant improvement in 2006. Matt Clement is only going to get worse.

MattyHo4Life
01-25-2006, 11:05 AM
I think the Reds would have been better off trading Kearns for Marquis, but I think this would also be a good trade for the Reds.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 11:06 AM
Clement is an injury concern, but Kearns isn't??? :confused:
Getting hit in the head is different. :help:

Johnny Footstool
01-25-2006, 11:06 AM
He got hit on July 26th, so his disasterous month of July was pre-beaning. He did have a good post-beaning August, followed by a bad September.



SPLIT ERA W L S SvO G GS IP H R ER HR BB SO BAA
Home 4.90 8 4 0 0 17 17 101.0 103 59 55 6 34 79 .263
Away 4.20 5 2 0 0 15 15 90.0 89 43 42 12 34 67 .256
April 3.90 2 0 0 0 5 5 30.0 38 14 13 1 12 24 .309
May 2.43 4 0 0 0 6 6 40.2 29 12 11 1 14 30 .199
June 3.94 3 1 0 0 5 5 32.0 29 14 14 4 6 28 .242
July 8.88 1 2 0 0 5 5 25.1 32 25 25 7 10 26 .299
Aug. 3.60 2 0 0 0 5 5 30.0 26 13 12 1 10 21 .239
Sept 6.00 1 3 0 0 6 6 33.0 38 24 22 4 16 17 .286

NCRed
01-25-2006, 11:07 AM
I would take Clement for Kearns for sure. As much as Clement is in doubt I would say Austin is in the same boat. Would we then have Rich for 1B and keep Dunn in the OF ? How about going after Piazza for 1B ?

Ravenlord
01-25-2006, 11:10 AM
Can anyone post Clement's stats both before and after he got hit by that liner?


Split ERA IP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9 WHIP GB/FB
Pre 4.43 128 2.70 2.81 7.59 9.00 0.91 1.31 1.32
Post 4.86 63 1.46 3.71 5.42 9.14 0.71 1.43 1.08

pre-injury, he has an ERA about 3/4 of a run higher than it probably should have been with thos peripherals.

post-injury, he had an ERA about 1/2 of a run lower than it probably should have been.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 11:11 AM
I would take Clement for Kearns for sure. As much as Clement is in doubt I would say Austin is in the same boat. Would we then have Rich for 1B and keep Dunn in the OF ? How about going after Piazza for 1B ?

If your goal is to make the infield defense worse (and I didn't think it would be possible) this is your answer. Piazza is not a 1B, that's why not many NL teams have interest in him. He can really only DH from here on out.

kbrake
01-25-2006, 11:16 AM
I still support trading Kearns for Clement, but if it would mean moving Dunn back to LF, Dunn, Jr, and Pena is a really scary defensive OF.

Unassisted
01-25-2006, 11:19 AM
Clement is an injury concern, but Kearns isn't??? :confused:And Kearns could just as easily blow this deal by not passing his physical.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 11:19 AM
I still support trading Kearns for Clement, but if it would mean moving Dunn back to LF, Dunn, Jr, and Pena is a really scary defensive OF.

I think we have to move Griffey at the deadline this year and have a replacement in place by next season.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 11:21 AM
Jr would have to approve any deal, and this close to the end I kind of wonder if he would.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 11:25 AM
Jr would have to approve any deal, and this close to the end I kind of wonder if he would.

Yeah, I think that's going to be more difficult than actually finding a trading partner and a suitable return for him.

traderumor
01-25-2006, 11:26 AM
He got hit on July 26th, so his disasterous month of July was pre-beaning. He did have a good post-beaning August, followed by a bad September.



SPLIT ERA W L S SvO G GS IP H R ER HR BB SO BAA
Home 4.90 8 4 0 0 17 17 101.0 103 59 55 6 34 79 .263
Away 4.20 5 2 0 0 15 15 90.0 89 43 42 12 34 67 .256
April 3.90 2 0 0 0 5 5 30.0 38 14 13 1 12 24 .309
May 2.43 4 0 0 0 6 6 40.2 29 12 11 1 14 30 .199
June 3.94 3 1 0 0 5 5 32.0 29 14 14 4 6 28 .242
July 8.88 1 2 0 0 5 5 25.1 32 25 25 7 10 26 .299
Aug. 3.60 2 0 0 0 5 5 30.0 26 13 12 1 10 21 .239
Sept 6.00 1 3 0 0 6 6 33.0 38 24 22 4 16 17 .286


Home/away splits are as expected with a high home ERA, but it must have been lobs off the Green Monster as he gave up half as many homers in Fenway.

I wonder if he had an indordinate number of home starts in that pathetic July and perhaps in September? Regardless, his performance has been commensurate with his pay and only if he was mentally affected, ala Herb Score, by the beaning is the primary risk in taking on the contract.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 11:32 AM
How much salary would want them to take on?

I'd say at least 1/3.

redsfan30
01-25-2006, 11:32 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think you have to take a shot on him. Yes, it would hurt to give up your best defensive outfielder but pitching is what this team needs.

I'd vote yes.

Ravenlord
01-25-2006, 11:36 AM
I wonder if he had an indordinate number of home starts in that pathetic July and perhaps in September?
July; 5 starts, 3 at home (including injury game). 0 quality starts.
August; 5 starts, 2 at home. 3 quality starts.
September; 6 starts, 2 at home. 3 quality starts.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 11:39 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think you have to take a shot on him. Yes, it would hurt to give up your best defensive outfielder but pitching is what this team needs.

I'd vote yes.

Damn is it tempting. Clement does address a problem in the rotation, but 1) you're giving up your best defensive OF 2) a player that has a lot of potential, 3) is under your control for a couple more years at a lower salary, and 4) you're giving up payroll flexibility to sign other people on your team to keep them around longer.

In the end, I just don't think it's worth it for 2 years of Clement. I want a pitcher in return that we have control over for the same amount of time we control Kearns.

steig
01-25-2006, 11:42 AM
I would have done the deal for a Zito or even washburn, but not clement. he can never be more than a #3 starter. I'd rather role the dice on kearns becoming a top line player if clement is all we can get.

lollipopcurve
01-25-2006, 11:42 AM
Clement is 31. As a power pitcher who relies on a very nasty slider, his best days are likely behind him. Clemens abandoned his slider. Rijo's slider took its toll and he was finished at a relatively young age. In general, you don't see many power righthanders with hard sliders keep that repertoire into their 30s (Big Unit, a lefthander, is a freak).

Kearns is 25 and at low value right now.

The Reds need to be patient and let Kearns and Wily Mo up their value.

Somebody stop Kullman from trying to prove himself here. It's just not the right time.

redsfan30
01-25-2006, 11:46 AM
In the end, I just don't think it's worth it for 2 years of Clement. I want a pitcher in return that we have control over for the same amount of time we control Kearns.
At the end of the 2 years, who knows....maybe we could resign him at a cheaper rate. And by that time, if all goes well Bailey and Wood could be getting closer to Great American Ball Park. A high-ceiling prospect is never a sure thing. Austin Kearns was (and to a certain extent, still is) one himself. I just think if you're going to trade him away you have to get back someone proven.

I think it's worth the shot and at the end of his contract try to resign him (if it's worth it at the time).

RedsManRick
01-25-2006, 11:47 AM
I can understand the aversion to Jake Westbrook, but why the extreme aversion to Clement. I think Clement is actually a pretty solid fit here. He misses a lot of bats (great hit/9 and k/9 rates) and keeps the ball in the park. He's averaged 192 IP per year since he came up 7 years ago. No significant pitching injuries. Obviously, his biggest problem is some wildness, but unless were looking at aces, nobody is gonna be perfect.

Given the state of our defense, I'd rather have a guy that could miss bats but walked a few more than he should than a Paul Byrd/Brad Radke type who doesn't walk anybody but needs a great defense.

Personally, I don't think trading Kearns right now makes a whole lot of sense. Given his supposed potential, I'd rather give him 3 months of healthy, uninterrupted starts to see what he does. If he's hitting .300 with 15 bombs in July, we could be players for a legitimate top prospect. Of course, it would take some real guts to trade a young, cheap guy who's producing.

IF we do trade Kearns, I think we'd be hard pressed to get better value than Clement. Of course, that's all predicated on the idea that he's healthy. Given some previous comments, it sounds like he might be damaged goods at this point.

Ravenlord
01-25-2006, 11:48 AM
Clement is 31. As a power pitcher who relies on a very nasty slider, his best days are likely behind him. Clemens abandoned his slider. Rijo's slider took its toll and he was finished at a relatively young age. In general, you don't see many power righthanders with hard sliders keep that repertoire into their 30s (Big Unit, a lefthander, is a freak).that's a very interesting point. doesn't Smoltz, Pedro, Millwood, Colon, Schmidt, Lieber kinda disprove it (all age 31 or older)?



and for those unfamilliar with Clement's career:

Age ERA IP K/BB BB/9 K/9 H/9 HR/9 WHIP Team
23 4.61 13.2 1.86 4.61 8.56 9.88 0.00 1.65 SD
24 4.48 180.2 1.57 4.28 6.73 9.46 0.90 1.53 SD
25 5.14 205 1.36 5.49 7.46 8.52 0.97 1.56 SD
26 5.05 169.1 1.58 4.52 7.12 9.14 0.80 1.52 FLA
27 3.60 205 2.53 3.73 9.44 7.11 0.79 1.20 CHN
28 4.11 201.2 2.16 3.53 7.63 7.54 0.98 1.23 CHN
29 3.68 181 2.47 3.83 9.45 7.71 1.14 1.28 CHN
30 4.57 191 2.15 3.20 6.88 9.05 0.85 1.36 BOS
Total 4.37 1347.1 1.92 4.09 7.84 8.34 0.91 1.38 -

lollipopcurve
01-25-2006, 11:59 AM
doesn't Smoltz, Pedro, Millwood, Colon, Schmidt, Lieber kinda disprove it (all age 31 or older)?

Good point, but:

Smoltz -- had to go to the pen (elbow issues)
Millwood -- injuries have been a problem (shoulder at least)
Schmidt -- injuries have been a problem (elbow & shoulder, I think)
Lieber -- injuries have been a problem (TJ surgery)
Pedro -- does he still throw a slider? I know he throws curves and changes -- if he does throw a slider, it's rare, I think.
Colon - an exception I suppose

Clement is high risk, both for age and arsenal issues, in my opinion.

Redus
01-25-2006, 12:20 PM
I think you miss read it:

According to the Boston Herald, the Reds are interested in getting back into the Coco Crisp deal, making a nine-player swap a possibility.
We're still not sure of the details here, but as reported earlier, Matt Clement would likely go to Cincinnati and Austin Kearns would be sent to Cleveland. We assume Andy Marte would still go Cleveland. Also, the agreed-upon Jason Michaels-for-Arthur Rhodes swap would probably be killed off.

Rotoworld.com
Well last night they said we killed the deal last week but now today it says were interested again. Im figuring Dan O didnt like it but maybe Kullman does. I dont know how I feel. I still like Kearns buttttttttt if Clement bounces back hes a pretty damn good pitcher.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 12:29 PM
Here is contract information on Clement. He could be very expensive.

Matt Clement: signed 3-year deal worth 25.5M thru 2007 on 12/22/04- he will make 6.5M in 2005 and 9.5M in both 2006 and 2007- + he can earn a 3M raise(escalator) in both in 2006 and 2007 based on both starts and innings pitching in the prior season- +the escalators are: 25K for 31 starts, 50K for 32, 75K for 33, and 100K for 34, or a total of an additional 250K and then 50K for 200 innings, 100K for 210, 150K for 220, and 200K for 230, or an additional 500K in total+ he can earn 3M in performance bonuses in 2007, that are valued the same as the escalators, but are compensated during the season- + he can earn award bonuses: 250K for All-Star selection and 2M for the Cy Young Award and lesser amounts for 2nd-5th Cy Young finishes- + bonuses he has earned: 250K for 2005 All-Star selection Agent: Barry Axelrod

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 12:34 PM
Get them to take Milton somehow, otherwise I see trouble with paying for Harang/Claussen/Dunn

lollipopcurve
01-25-2006, 12:38 PM
In the hullaballo to get more pitching, I think what's getting lost is that the Reds need to figure out who their offensive core is going to be going forward. First order of business should be Castellini & Co. sitting down with Lopez's and Dunn's agents and talking LTCs. If they can't make it work -- and a contract like Clement's would certainly hamper those efforts -- then those are the guys to shop for pitching.

redsfan30
01-25-2006, 12:39 PM
Judging by the contract information, if it's Kearns for Clement straight up with no money involved then I'm all the sudden alittle gunshy. If you could get Boston to pay a good chunk of that contract then I'd have renewed interest.

Next question....if getting Boston to pay a portion of that salary meant throwing in a prospect or two, would you still do it?

RedFanAlways1966
01-25-2006, 12:40 PM
Get them to take Milton somehow...

I think the only team that would take Milton (and his pay) would be the next foolish-team to sign DOB as their new GM. And I do not see that happenin'. UGH!

:bang:

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 12:41 PM
...or a team playing in a place with 600 ft fences ;)

savafan
01-25-2006, 12:45 PM
I would trade Kearns for Clement every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

And personally, I think Matt Clement has the best facial hair in baseball.

kbrake
01-25-2006, 12:51 PM
In the hullaballo to get more pitching, I think what's getting lost is that the Reds need to figure out who their offensive core is going to be going forward. First order of business should be Castellini & Co. sitting down with Lopez's and Dunn's agents and talking LTCs. If they can't make it work -- and a contract like Clement's would certainly hamper those efforts -- then those are the guys to shop for pitching.


Very well said. I am all for this trade, but I still think we need lock up Dunn and Lopez ASAP. If the Clement money gets in the way of those deals then yeah I'm a little more hesitant. I wouldnt even ask them about Milton, it would probaly just offend them and get them to take less of Clements contract.

Falls City Beer
01-25-2006, 12:52 PM
Clement's K rates dried up and blew away last season. Tread carefully. Tread $19 million carefully. Cuz if he stinks up the joint, we're on the hook for two/three very expensive liabilities.

Roy Tucker
01-25-2006, 12:55 PM
In the hullaballo to get more pitching, I think what's getting lost is that the Reds need to figure out who their offensive core is going to be going forward. First order of business should be Castellini & Co. sitting down with Lopez's and Dunn's agents and talking LTCs. If they can't make it work -- and a contract like Clement's would certainly hamper those efforts -- then those are the guys to shop for pitching.
I believe this to be a very true and excellent statement. Drive a stake in the ground, tell Dunn and Lopez that they are the cornerstones of the franchise for the next 3 years, and try your darndest to sign them to LTCs.

Particularly in Dunn's case, if he won't sign, wait till trading deadline and use him to get package of young good pitching. That's painful, but it will be more painful if he walks for a draft choice as a FA. I'm not as sure about Lopez. He hasn't proven himself to the degree Dunn has and may not be as LTC-worthy. Hard call to make.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 12:58 PM
Judging by the contract information, if it's Kearns for Clement straight up with no money involved then I'm all the sudden alittle gunshy. If you could get Boston to pay a good chunk of that contract then I'd have renewed interest.



That's the position I'm in as well.

If you do the trade, your budget is maxed out and signing Dunn, Lopez, or Harang long term are probably no longer considerations. And for what? A good pitcher for the next 2 years (who is 31 now, and will be 33 at the end of this contract).

As others have pointed out, a pitcher that is 33 years old and throws a hard slider effectively is rare, so signing him to an extension when we need him to be effective (when we'll most likely be competitive as a team) is probably not going to happen, and if it does, it is more likely to be an albatross contract like Milton's.

What scares me is Castellini's promise to be competitive as soon as this season. Those kinds of statements, along with a interim GM wanting to prove he can get something done, can lead to problems.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 01:03 PM
I just hope we didn't go from absolutely no action = DanO to crazy wheeling and dealing to try and force something to happen immediately = Castellini / Kullman?

vaticanplum
01-25-2006, 01:12 PM
And personally, I think Matt Clement has the best facial hair in baseball.

Oh man. Observe:

http://images.art.com/images/products/large/10107000/10107443.jpg

http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/clementbow.jpg

Now which of these men do you want to make out with. To each his own, but personally, the first picture literally turns my stomach. He looks to me like he morphed from an otter to a human upside down, and the chin was the only part that didn't quite make the transition.

Regarding, you know, baseball, I agree with lollipopcurve 100%. There is a real pressure for new owners/managers to make immediate splashes, I'm guilty of wanting it myself to a degree, but the splash has to be wise and long-term. Like firing Dan O'Brien for example.

NC Reds
01-25-2006, 01:13 PM
I agree with the sentiment that Lopez and Dunn need to be signed to LTC's before committing to any trade. I too fear that the new owner/interim GM may be trying too hard to make a splash. I would stay away from Clement. He is fast approaching the downside of his career and makes too much money.

Ravenlord
01-25-2006, 01:18 PM
Clement's K rates dried up and blew away last season. Tread carefully. Tread $19 million carefully. Cuz if he stinks up the joint, we're on the hook for two/three very expensive liabilities.
before he had his head knocked off his K rate was in line with his career norm. but therein lies part of the problem. h

is post concussion K rate is Paul Wilsonesq in nature, and that could be what he remains for the next year, or possibly even forever. damn head wounds.

lollipopcurve
01-25-2006, 01:19 PM
Drive a stake in the ground, tell Dunn and Lopez that they are the cornerstones of the franchise for the next 3 years, and try your darndest to sign them to LTCs.

Take a lesson from the Bengals. They kept their own and got Palmer, Johnson & Johnson and Housh all signed long-term. Players respond to that stuff.

I'd go well past 3 years with Dunn.

Johnny Footstool
01-25-2006, 01:42 PM
How much salary would want them to take on?

I'd say at least 1/3.

I'd do it for less than that -- somewhere around $4 million total.

If he achieves his performance clauses, he's worth the extra money.


I agree with the sentiment that Lopez and Dunn need to be signed to LTC's before committing to any trade.

The ball appears to be in Dunn's and Lopez's court as far as LTCs are concerned. The team has made offers, but the players have declined.

They might be more inclined to sign if the team brings in some pitching.

REDREAD
01-25-2006, 01:45 PM
Boss, I'd argue that Kearns' value isn't all that low if he can fetch Clement.

Count me as being 100% on board with this idea.


I agree with you. I do the Clement for Kearns deal without even thinking twice.

I agree that Clement had a disappointing season last year for his salary. But as Steel pointed out, the peripherals were still pretty good. They give you a decent hope for a bounceback. Clement wouldn't have to bounce back far to easily be our #1 or #2.

If Castillini wants results now, he has to take gambles like this. The Reds pantry is too bare to trade for sure thing pitchers. Kearns value has slipped since last year, although it's still decent. I think we almost have to trade Kearns this year. Right now, he still has the potential factor going for him. He's still cheap. The team that gets him owns him for 3 years (I think).
If Kearns even has just an "average" season next year, his salary goes up considerably, and more of the "potential" luster wears off.

Clement was at the top of most people's wish list just last year. Now we have a chance to pick him up on the cheap because Boston has too many SP. It's only a 2 year commitment. If the team doesn't acquire a Clement type pitcher, we're just going to spin our wheels for the next 2 years anyhow (even if we keep Kearns).

I think the Reds almost have to do this trade, unless another team is dangling a better pitcher for Kearns (which I doubt, although it's possible).

lollipopcurve
01-25-2006, 01:50 PM
The ball appears to be in Dunn's and Lopez's court as far as LTCs are concerned. The team has made offers, but the players have declined.

O'Brien's quote was that they'd do one-year deals then revisit the matter in ST. That was pre-Castellini taking over officially.

A concerted effort by the new ownership hasn't been made. They need to try, and without the stupid "no-negotiating-during-the-season" thing.

kbrake
01-25-2006, 01:56 PM
If we dont make this trade right now, then how long do we wait for Kearns to pan out? The guy has been around awhile now and has shown not only to be a little bit injury prone but also has shown that he can struggle to adjust now that pitchers have adjusted to him from his hot start in 2003.

REDREAD
01-25-2006, 01:57 PM
I'd do it for less than that -- somewhere around $4 million total.
.

Is 4 million over 2 years really that significant? I have some hope that Castilllini is not going to be nearly as tight fisted as Carl.

We're so used to sweating out every 500k, thanks to John Allen's reign of terror.

Every team in baseball has a boatload more money this year. I hope that 2 million/year for what I believe is a huge upgrade in our pitching staff isn't a deal breaker.

Don't get me wrong, it doesn't hurt to ask the Red Sox.

A rotation of Milton/Clement/Williams/Harang/Clauseen is a step up.

I'm going to assume Paul Wilson will be useless next year.

savafan
01-25-2006, 02:07 PM
Now which of these men do you want to make out with.

When you put it that way, I don't like Matt Clement that much.

Heath
01-25-2006, 02:08 PM
Oh man. Observe:

http://images.art.com/images/products/large/10107000/10107443.jpg

http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/clementbow.jpg

Now which of these men do you want to make out with. To each his own, but personally, the first picture literally turns my stomach. He looks to me like he morphed from an otter to a human upside down, and the chin was the only part that didn't quite make the transition.

vatican - I'll trust you to make that judgement regarding making out with Matt Clement. :D

Other than that - I'd stay away from Clement and his disappearing fastball act. UNLESS - the Red Sox are paying MOST of the contract.

I'm more inclined to say the reason this failed is due to DanO's "dragging feet" or "dropped Post-It note from the binder" rather than a baseball-related decision.

I'm glad it didn't happen. Let's let Kearns play all year, hit .280/25/90 and then see what his market is.

RedFanAlways1966
01-25-2006, 02:24 PM
I'm glad it didn't happen. Let's let Kearns play all year, hit .280/25/90 and then see what his market is.

I'd luv to see it. History works against it so far. It shows that AK will not stay healthy all year and therefore will not give himself the opportunity to put up 25 HRs and 90 RBIs. Another year like 2005 and I am really scared to see what his value will be.

savafan
01-25-2006, 02:51 PM
After rereading this several times, I see where it is talking about a 9 player trade, but no where do I see 9 players' names mentioned. Is it possible that Clement may not be the only player coming Cincy's way, or leaving GABP for that matter?

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 02:51 PM
Kearns won't get a fair shake all year here, Womack and Aurilia will have to play everyday, being vets and all..so Freel will be in the OF a lot.

redsfan30
01-25-2006, 03:00 PM
Are any of the Redszone resident insiders aware of anything involving these rumors?

Big Donkey? cincyredsfan30? BrooklynRedz? Others?

Caveat Emperor
01-25-2006, 03:02 PM
Kearns won't get a fair shake all year here, Womack and Aurilia will have to play everyday, being vets and all..so Freel will be in the OF a lot.

In the O'Brien regime: Yes...I think we'd see far too much Womack and Aurillia.

In the post-O'Brien regime: I'm not so certain.

Hopefully someone in the Reds front office can read a stat line and will understand the only value that Aurillia and Womack have to the team is either as trades going out of town or as "getaway day" starters to rest other players.

Barbarossa
01-25-2006, 03:23 PM
After rereading this several times, I see where it is talking about a 9 player trade, but no where do I see 9 players' names mentioned. Is it possible that Clement may not be the only player coming Cincy's way, or leaving GABP for that matter?


Just came from a Cleveland board that has 58 pages on this possible trade. They seem to think it'll go down like this.

To Cleveland
3B Marte
RF Kearns

To Cincinnati
SP Clement
or
Sp Westbrook & prospect

To Boston
CF Coco Crisp
RP David Riske
C Josh Bard

They seem very anxious to do this trade.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 03:26 PM
Westbrook:

Jake Westbrook: signed 2-year deal worth 7.5M on 1/24/05- he will make 2.9M in 2005 and 4.25M in 2006- + the deal includes a Team Option for 2007 worth 5.6M or a 350K buyout- + the value of the option can rise to 5.8M with 200IP in 2006 and to 6.1M with 210IP in 2006- + the value of the buyout can rise to 600K with 180IP in 2005- + the deal includes escalators based on top 5 finishes in Cy Young voting Service Time: 3.114

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 03:28 PM
In the O'Brien regime: Yes...I think we'd see far too much Womack and Aurillia.

In the post-O'Brien regime: I'm not so certain.

Hopefully someone in the Reds front office can read a stat line and will understand the only value that Aurillia and Womack have to the team is either as trades going out of town or as "getaway day" starters to rest other players.
One constant though..Jerry "Old School" Narron

savafan
01-25-2006, 03:45 PM
If it could be both Clement and Westbrook coming back the Reds way, I'd be even giddier. Not if it is just Westbrook though.

KronoRed
01-25-2006, 03:46 PM
Kearns for Westbrook would be a disaster

Caveman Techie
01-25-2006, 03:52 PM
Ok, in light of the new ownership group I am removing money from this equation. If you just think in terms of what makes sense baseball wise would you trade Kearns for Clement? If the answer isn't a resounding YES, then you need to go have your head examined. :)

Now I'm not saying that money isn't a factor but let's not go overboard. What happened to all the money that was saved by not paying for Graves, Jimenez, and Casey? Yes I know some, if not alot of it is used up in new contracts for the arb-eligible players, but surely not all of it. And besides I get the impression that the budget is going to be loosened a little bit, just a gut feeling I have nothing solid.

Johnny Footstool
01-25-2006, 03:54 PM
Is 4 million over 2 years really that significant? I have some hope that Castilllini is not going to be nearly as tight fisted as Carl.

It's a low number, but I'm trying to be realistic. I don't see them kicking in anything over $5 million.

$4 million would pay for WMP this season and next.

savafan
01-25-2006, 03:56 PM
And besides I get the impression that the budget is going to be loosened a little bit, just a gut feeling I have nothing solid.

I have that same feeling redlegz.

Aronchis
01-25-2006, 03:59 PM
Cast's control is more advanced than Lindner's, who didn't own half the shares.

Alot of the "savings" were lost in the mix due to Arb increases, Womack/Aurilia and the such. I think the Reds have a little to spend, but unless they do it wisely, it will be business as usual.

Redus
01-25-2006, 04:02 PM
How do you get rep points? Im looking pretty dismal.

Boss-Hog
01-25-2006, 04:09 PM
How do you get rep points? Im looking pretty dismal.
Linked on the main forums page:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35437

REDREAD
01-25-2006, 04:13 PM
How do you get rep points? Im looking pretty dismal.

And don't ask about them. :)
That rubs some people the wrong way

savafan
01-25-2006, 04:23 PM
How do you get rep points? Im looking pretty dismal.

I was just checking out the FAQ. Looks like that could use a little updating.

shredda2000
01-25-2006, 04:45 PM
To Cincinnati
SP Clement
or
Sp Westbrook & prospect

Any idea who the prospect might be?

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 04:50 PM
To Cincinnati
SP Clement
or
Sp Westbrook & prospect

Any idea who the prospect might be?

It'd be nice if it was Garko, Carmona or Franki Gutierrez (yeah, right).

membengal
01-25-2006, 04:51 PM
To Cincinnati
SP Clement
or
Sp Westbrook & prospect

Any idea who the prospect might be?

It won't be good enough. I want Clement if the Reds are going to do this. He would immediately go to the front of this team's rotation. Westbrook would not.

blumj
01-25-2006, 04:53 PM
From the Red Sox side, they were willing to go Marte, Shoppach, and Mota for Crisp, Riske, and Bard. Now, supposedly they're willing to go Clement, cash, and Marte for the same, does that mean that Clement + cash=Shoppach and Mota? Seems a little off to me. If Shoppach had that much value he'd have been long gone, and if Mota did, how'd they get him as a throw in for an A-ball arm?

RedsNeck
01-25-2006, 05:01 PM
Based on his last 600 AB's Kearns for any legit starting pitcher is a windfall. Westbrook and Clement both have their pros & cons. Westbrook is an extreme GB pitcher with a much lower K ratio. Clement gets more K's but lets people get the ball in the air twice as often a GAB no-no but at this point I'd take either one and be giddy. OF's are a dime a dozen. Pitching is where it's at.

Sabo Fan
01-25-2006, 05:04 PM
If this trade ends up with the Reds shipping Kearns out and bringing Clement back and that's it, then I'm against it. What you'd have if he performed to his potential is a solid #3 who costs you $9+ and more if he meets his incentives. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily if you have the cash to spend and the possibility that you'll be a legit contender at some point during the duration of his contract.

But here's the thing: barring Castellini opening the wallet and shelling out some major money next offseason, this team is probably looking at 2008 before they become serious contenders. Sure, Matt Clement might make your team pitching numbers a bit more palatable and he'll probably post a nice, shiny win total, but the truth of the matter is that he's not going to be able to single-handedly turn your entire pitching staff around. The problems with this pitching staff run deeper than anything adding Clement would fix.

If ownership is willing to shell out that much money for Clement, I would suggest doing one of two things with it: 1. Diverting it into the Keep Adam Dunn in Cincinnati Fund (or Lopez or Harang funds) 2. Putting it in a safe place and waiting until next offseason to use it on a promising-looking free agent class where you don't have to give up anything of value to get something you want (except for a draft pick, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice). If the payroll is to stay around $60-65 million this season and into the not-so-distant future, then you have to be very careful about who you spend those few resources on, and I don't think locking up almost $10 million into a pitcher of Clement's ilk is the way to go.

Kearns is capable of being a cornerstone as long as you don't jerk him around, let him play and hope he's lucky enough to stay healthy. I know there are health issues, but for the first time in two or three years he has a regular spot in the everyday lineup and I for one would like to see what he can do with that opportunity. If he stays and has a productive season, then you can either lock him up along with Dunn, Lopez, Harang, etc. to be a pillar, or you can flip him when his value is up for something better than Matt Clement.

The bottomline here is that there is very little downside to keeping Kearns for this season. His value is at its lowest and if he falters again this season, you can probably still fetch a pitcher similar to Clement for him next offseason and you haven't lost much. But if you stay the course with him and he performs to expectations, then you have a very marketable chip that can be moved next year for something much better than Matt Clement.

savafan
01-25-2006, 05:05 PM
Based on his last 600 AB's Kearns for any legit starting pitcher is a windfall. Westbrook and Clement both have their pros & cons. Westbrook is an extreme GB pitcher with a much lower K ratio. Clement gets more K's but lets people get the ball in the air twice as often a GAB no-no but at this point I'd take either one and be giddy. OF's are a dime a dozen. Pitching is where it's at.

Yeah, I'm starting to feel that way too. There are always outfielders available. Isn't Russell Branyan still out there? He could go to first base and move Dunn back to the outfield.

Red Leader
01-25-2006, 05:12 PM
If this trade ends up with the Reds shipping Kearns out and bringing Clement back and that's it, then I'm against it. What you'd have if he performed to his potential is a solid #3 who costs you $9+ and more if he meets his incentives. There's nothing wrong with that necessarily if you have the cash to spend and the possibility that you'll be a legit contender at some point during the duration of his contract.

But here's the thing: barring Castellini opening the wallet and shelling out some major money next offseason, this team is probably looking at 2008 before they become serious contenders. Sure, Matt Clement might make your team pitching numbers a bit more palatable and he'll probably post a nice, shiny win total, but the truth of the matter is that he's not going to be able to single-handedly turn your entire pitching staff around. The problems with this pitching staff run deeper than anything adding Clement would fix.

If ownership is willing to shell out that much money for Clement, I would suggest doing one of two things with it: 1. Diverting it into the Keep Adam Dunn in Cincinnati Fund (or Lopez or Harang funds) 2. Putting it in a safe place and waiting until next offseason to use it on a promising-looking free agent class where you don't have to give up anything of value to get something you want (except for a draft pick, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice). If the payroll is to stay around $60-65 million this season and into the not-so-distant future, then you have to be very careful about who you spend those few resources on, and I don't think locking up almost $10 million into a pitcher of Clement's ilk is the way to go.

Kearns is capable of being a cornerstone as long as you don't jerk him around, let him play and hope he's lucky enough to stay healthy. I know there are health issues, but for the first time in two or three years he has a regular spot in the everyday lineup and I for one would like to see what he can do with that opportunity. If he stays and has a productive season, then you can either lock him up along with Dunn, Lopez, Harang, etc. to be a pillar, or you can flip him when his value is up for something better than Matt Clement.

The bottomline here is that there is very little downside to keeping Kearns for this season. His value is at its lowest and if he falters again this season, you can probably still fetch a pitcher similar to Clement for him next offseason and you haven't lost much. But if you stay the course with him and he performs to expectations, then you have a very marketable chip that can be moved next year for something much better than Matt Clement.


That's exactly where I'm at as well. Sure Clement would make the Reds more "watchable" for the next 2 years, but in 3-4 years when the Reds should really be competitive, where will he be? If he's still here, he'll either get hurt or not be effective anymore, and what other sacrifices will we have to make for years 3-4 by bring Clement on board for years 1 and 2? Don't forget that part of this whole deal.

Matt700wlw
01-25-2006, 05:15 PM
Despite his extremely disappointing 2005, I'm still not in favor of trading Kearns while his value is at an all time low. However, since it looks as if it's inevitable, I'd prefer to leave Dunn at first, slide Griffey to RF and start Denorfia in CF.


This team has stunk because of pitching.

If that doesn't change, then it doesn't matter who's in the outfield....if you can upgrade the pitching by getting rid of an outfielder, why don't you do it? It's all about pitching, remember?

Boss-Hog
01-25-2006, 05:17 PM
This team has stunk because of pitching.

If that doesn't change, then it doesn't matter who's in the outfield....if you can upgrade the pitching by getting rid of an outfielder, why don't you do it?
After thinking it over, I'm not necessarily against the proposed deal, but I'll cite you two reasons: a). financial ramifications and b). health ramifications, both of which would seem to apply here.

Matt700wlw
01-25-2006, 05:23 PM
After thinking it over, I'm not necessarily against the proposed deal, but I'll cite you two reasons: a). financial ramifications and b). health ramifications, both of which would seem to apply here.

I'm not so sure "financial remifications" are going to be as big of a deal under new ownership.

Health I can understand......but nobody's health is ever a certainty

Sabo Fan
01-25-2006, 05:29 PM
After thinking it over, I'm not necessarily against the proposed deal, but I'll cite you two reasons: a). financial ramifications and b). health ramifications, both of which would seem to apply here.

To me, both of those reasons are more than enough not to make this trade. If I'm moving Kearns, one of the few marketable commodities I have in my organization right now, I want more of a sure thing pitching-wise than Clement, as well as a guy whose contract isn't going to prevent me from doing anything else.

One of the biggest reasons this organization has floundered recently is becasue big-money, long-term deals were given out to the wrong guys. They just got Casey's contract off the books and now they want to replace it with Clement's? Not smart. Sure he addresses a need, but in my opinion it's not enough of an upgrade to justify the money he'd get and they payflex he'd eliminate.

If the Reds get Clement, then you've got about half of your payroll tied up in the likes of Clement, Milton, and Griffey. That should scare the hell out of everyone here, because you're talking about one guy who is downright awful, one guy who has been so-so in the past, and one guy who, even though I would make the trade again, has been hurt so much that he has to be considered a huge liability.

Best case scenario should this deal go down is that Clement comes in here, has a good first half and can be flipped for some prospects. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather eliminate the middle-man and the $9 million risk and just hold onto Kearns and look to deal him later if need be. Throw in the fact that I'm sick and tired of having to qualify every single move the Reds make by saying "Well, we made this deal A, and if B, C and D happen then it'll be ok," and I'm against this whole thing. I want a trade that can stand by itself and be considered a solid move and this just wouldn't be one of them.

Hoosier Red
01-25-2006, 05:31 PM
I definately agree with trading Kearns for Clement.

The financial argument doesn't fly here. If the Reds don't make trades to improve the pitching staff, they won't be competitive until 2008.

Even if Clement goes all Eric Milton on us, he's gone by 2008 anyway so I don't see where that applies.

Here's how I see the two scenarios;

Keep Kearns:
Best Case: He reverts to his Rookie form, finds the timing on inside Cheese, stays in shape, hits .300 gets a ton of money in arbitration/free agency in 2008. The pitching still stinks by the way, so the Reds lose 90 games.

Worst Case: He never finds his stroke again, continues to hit .240 with very little pop, makes an annual appearance on the DL and has no trade value in 2008 anyway, the Reds set a team record for losses.

Trade Kearns:
Best Case: Clement comes in and acts like the ace pitcher the Reds have been needing for years. Making roughly 30 starts, he goes 23-7, with an ERA around the magic 3.00 mark, striking out a batter an inning. The rotation of Clement, Harang, Claussen, Williams, and Milton, is just good enough to keep the Reds in the race until July. At that time, the Reds make another bold move trading for another top level starter and a hammer in the bully. The Reds win 100 games.

Worst Case:Clement makes Eric Milton look good by comparison, the 2006 and 2007 Reds continues to tradition of giving up Home Runs at historic rates. At the end of 2006 and 2007, the Reds part ways with the two worst pitching acquisitions in baseball history.

Even in the last scenario, the Reds are really no worse off than they were in either scenario with Kearns staying.
I don't think that Clement is the only answer to respectability, but the Reds are really risking anything competitively speaking by making the trade

Boss-Hog
01-25-2006, 05:31 PM
You heard Castellini say the Reds are budgeted to break even (and that the budget will remain the same) during his press conferences, right? Trust me, as long as Cincinnati is one of the smaller major league markets, money will always be an issue. Hell, it's an issue for every time, save the Yankees.

When I referred to health concerns, I was alluding to the long term effects (if any) that getting plunked in the head may have on his performance. I'm not saying that's sure to happen, but given his statistics after the injury, it's certainly something worth considering.

RedsNeck
01-25-2006, 05:34 PM
This team has stunk because of pitching.

If that doesn't change, then it doesn't matter who's in the outfield....if you can upgrade the pitching by getting rid of an outfielder, why don't you do it? It's all about pitching, remember?

Amen!! No team can win regardless of how great the offense with a rotation that is 3/5 trash (Hudson, Ortiz, Milton) but with the Williams, Clement or Westbrook upgrade, virtually the same offense and an owner that would have the fortitude to sit Milton if he continued to stink I think we have a shot to compete. Our past champions we're never built on great pithcing(with the exception of the 90' bullpen) but all had adequate arms available.

Matt700wlw
01-25-2006, 05:38 PM
You heard Castellini say the Reds are budgeted to break even (and that the budget will remain the same) during his press conferences, right? Trust me, as long as Cincinnati is one of the smaller major league markets, money will always be an issue. Hell, it's an issue for every time, save the Yankees.

When I referred to health concerns, I was alluding to the long term effects (if any) that getting plunked in the head may have on his performance. I'm not saying that's sure to happen, but given his statistics after the injury, it's certainly something worth considering.

Castellini said he'd also be willing to bite the bullet on some money if it means winning. Not in the beginning of the seaosn neccessarily, but let's say, come June and the Reds are in the hunt...

Better pitching will make a better team with or without Kearns. A better team mid-season should lead to Mr. Castellini allowing Kullman (or whomever the GM is at that point) to go get some more pieces to take this team into September and hopefully October.

I'd take a chance on Westbrook or Clement.

Aronchis
01-25-2006, 05:46 PM
Depends if you think the Bullpen and Claussen are going to improve. I can't see Harang improving alot except with his win/loss ratio which was out of wack last year. But if Claussen gets better and the bullpen youngsters continue to improve, you could make the arguement, somebody like Clement makes the Reds good enough to compete so they add another arm or two at the deadline.

As I said before, be very very carefull as you tread...............

RedsManRick
01-25-2006, 06:07 PM
If you get the best Clement has to offer, does that make us a contender, or put us in position to add more talent at the trading deadline? If the answer to that question is 'no', then I'm not sure why this deal would be considered right now.

If Milton returns to his 4.80 ERA self, the youngsters don't regress, and the long relief and spot starters don't absolutely destroy us like they did last year, we could pretty reasonably drop the team ERA to the 4.60 range. I did an analysis a few months back which showed this in detail. I don't have the time to find it right now, however.

Throw Clement in the mix and get a repeat performance offensively (I think we regress slightly, especially with Kearns gone), then we could be in the thick of it in July.

Of course, that's a best case scenario. Clement is still no bargain, he's just helped move the balance point up a notch. If he struggles, we've just spent the money that could've gone to Harang, Dunn, and Lopez, possibly setting us back a year.

However, keeping Kearns for now leaves us with options. If he bombs, we don't really lose much, as noted above, Clement is at best a fair value proposition and Kearns' trade value otherwise is pretty poor. We're still on the same path we're currently on. But if Kearns regains his form, we've got a legit corner OF at under market value. Surely he'd be worth more than a Matt Clement (in the form of a top pitching prospect) come July.

Even if not, if Milton continues his suckage and we have other pitching problems, the addition of even a best case Matt Clement probably doesn't make the difference. And if we just get average Matt Clement, who's to say that the guy getting bumped from the rotation (a healthy Paul Wilson, Dave Williams, or Matt Belisle) couldn't do just as well without costing us Kearns.

There just seems to be many better things that can happening by holding on to Kearns for now. The risk/reward scales of that kind of a trade just don't tip in our favor. If we were already a .500 club needing a boost, it would make a lot of sense. But for a club for whom .500 would be an accomplishment, doesn't seem like a smart risk.

Redmachine2003
01-25-2006, 06:16 PM
Unless I am mistaken the Reds have about 9 mill. to spend even after signing Dunn and Lopez, if the payroll is around 65 million. So you take away Kearn's 1.8 and add Clements 9 the Reds are still with in the budget.

cincyinco
01-25-2006, 06:16 PM
Matt Clement is nothing more than a mediocre pitcher. A career 4.37 ERA and a 1.38 WHIP. He's also signed to a Milton like contract. And I'm not sure how much better than Milton he really is. I dont want Milton part II.

Austin Kearns has the chance to be special. He could also flop, sure.

But I think you have to ask yourselves a question. Is fliping Austin Kearns for mediocrity a good trade? I dont think so. The Reds have been treading cirles in the water for far too long. We need to stop accepting trades for mediocre players.

I know Clement represents an upgrade to our staff. But thats only because our staff is so bad. But if I trade Kearns, I want better than Clement, his salary, and his potential head issues. I want a higher ceiling. I want a younger player.

Yes pitching wins ballgames... I know that. But it STILL HAS TO BE GOOD PITCHING. To me Clement does not represent that. I dont think his periphrials are what we should pay for.

Matt700wlw
01-25-2006, 06:25 PM
I know Clement represents an upgrade to our staff. But thats only because our staff is so bad. But if I trade Kearns, I want better than Clement, his salary, and his potential head issues. I want a higher ceiling. I want a younger player.



I'd probably take Westbrook first over Clement. However, you want better than Clement or Westbrook for Kearns? You better trade Dunn then, or throw more into a Kearns package, because Kearns value isn't getting any higher the more he shows up out of shape, bats .240, drives in 61 runs, gets hurt, and nails 19 HRs.

I'm not sure, at this point, if Wily Mo would get you any better either...but he is a younger player.

cincyinco
01-25-2006, 06:32 PM
I'd probably take Westbrook first over Clement. However, you want better than Clement or Westbrook for Kearns? You better trade Dunn then, or throw more into a Kearns package, because Kearns value isn't getting any higher the more he shows up out of shape, bats .240, drives in 61 runs, gets hurt, and nails 19 HRs.

I'm not sure, at this point, if Wily Mo would get you any better either...but he is a younger player.

I understand what I want and what is available for his value may not exist. In that case I keep Kearns.

Clement just doesn't do it for me. I don't see how he represents a significant benefit than what we already are running out there in the rotation. Sure, we may throw something out worse. But Clement is only a little bit better than that.

reds44
01-25-2006, 06:38 PM
Kearns is my boy. Offer Pena for Clement.
I agree.

We need Ears' D much more then we need Pena's O.

reds44
01-25-2006, 06:40 PM
Who would play 1st base for us then? You would figure Dunn would go back to LF ro would we put Freel in left and leave Dunn at 1st?

Freel
FeLo
Griffey
Dunn
Pena
LaRue
Womack
Enc

??

Johnny Footstool
01-25-2006, 06:40 PM
But Clement is only a little bit better than that.

The Clement of 2004 and three months of 2005 is more than a little better than what the Reds had in 2005. ERA in the low 3.00's, K/9 upwards around 9, few HR allowed. What's not to like?

Honestly, if he didn't get plunked in the noggin, this is a no-brainer.

Kc61
01-25-2006, 06:54 PM
I think getting Clement for Kearns is a great trade for the Reds. Kearns right now is a very questionable commodity. It is 50-50 whether he will ever meet the potential he had when drafted. Clement is a very solid starter, pitches innings, doesn't give up lots of homers.

The only question is whether Reds can get some financial relief in such a deal. If so, I would make it in a heartbeat.

Austin Kearns is not bringing back Mark Prior or Tim Hudson. Clement would be a very good return.

M2
01-25-2006, 08:57 PM
Sabo Fan, my take is that Clement's way more of a sure thing on the mound than Kearns is at the plate.

buckshotrod
01-25-2006, 09:06 PM
I am taking Westbrook over Clement but would take either for Kearns. Austin has not been the same since Fat Ray King sat on him. Go to Retrosheet and check the date to prensent. Kearns is hitting in the low 200s since the blob sat on him. I like austin but personally I gotta climb all over either deal. Westbrook is less money adn less risk...

Caveat Emperor
01-25-2006, 09:29 PM
I understand what I want and what is available for his value may not exist. In that case I keep Kearns.

Clement just doesn't do it for me. I don't see how he represents a significant benefit than what we already are running out there in the rotation. Sure, we may throw something out worse. But Clement is only a little bit better than that.

I think too many people are too optomistic about what Ausitn Kearns really is. He's shown flashes of brilliance, but nothing more. He can't stay healthy for a full season (partially a byproduct of his physical conditioning, I think), and he seems to have regressed significantly in the past few years.

If players were stocks, Austin Kearns would be a dog right now. The Reds are holding onto a dog stock that's value keeps dipping lower and lower, while just hoping that he either rebounds signifcantly to up his value or that somebody is willing to overpay for him. Right now, there's somebody willing to overpay for him, and fans are still reluctant to trade him.

Fact is, this kind of thinking is what paralyzed the O'Brien administration -- too much "what ifitis" ("What if he has a great year and we get more value?" "What if we trade him and he goes on a tear?" etc.). How many more years are we going to play this game with Austin Kearns and (more importantly) what kind of value is he going to have if we're asking these same questions next year?

savafan
01-25-2006, 09:35 PM
Big Donkey, or any other baseball insiders...

Have you heard anything about a Kearns/Milton to the New York Yankees for Carl Pavano trade? If not, see if there is any possible truth to it.

What I hear is that Cashman has been coveting Kearns for some time now, even tried to acquire him back when the Reds optioned him to AAA, but DanO wouldn't pull the trigger on a deal. Now hearing that Kearns is available and DanO is no longer around, and with the Yankees having so many starters it is being said that they approached the Reds about a potential deal involving Carl Pavano, but that the Reds would want the Yankees to take Eric Milton's contract (a la Mike Lowell to Boston in the Josh Beckett deal) in order to offset Pavano's contract and dump Milton's.

Now, I don't know if there is any truth to it, but I'm curious if you've heard that it is being discussed. If there is truth to this rumor, I definately like getting Pavano and dumping Milton a lot better than just getting either Clement or Westbrook.

Hondo
01-25-2006, 09:38 PM
Trade Womack for Clement, he has Yankees secrets...

JaredRoberts.com

AK and WMP will probably smack 30 DINGERS-A-PIECE in 2006!!!

kbrake
01-25-2006, 09:53 PM
Trade Womack for Clement, he has Yankees secrets...

JaredRoberts.com

AK and WMP will probably smack 30 DINGERS-A-PIECE in 2006!!!


And Milton will give up 45........we need pitching.

Falls City Beer
01-25-2006, 10:27 PM
Sabo Fan, my take is that Clement's way more of a sure thing on the mound than Kearns is at the plate.

Of course he is. I actually don't think people are so concerned about Kearns exiting (I'm not), but Matt Clement is a monstrous, monstrous question mark that could curtail the likelihood of signing bona fide, no-question-about-it talent: Dunn and Lopez. I'm saying, if you're going to go risky, get guaranteed performance in return (Contreras, Zito). I actually doubt that even half of Clement's problems last year were attributable to the headshot--I just think he's getting older and less effective.

RedFanAlways1966
01-25-2006, 10:27 PM
I think too many people are too optomistic about what Ausitn Kearns really is.

Right now, there's somebody willing to overpay for him, and fans are still reluctant to trade him.

Fact is, this kind of thinking is what paralyzed the O'Brien administration -- too much "what ifitis" ("What if he has a great year and we get more value?" "What if we trade him and he goes on a tear?" etc.). How many more years are we going to play this game with Austin Kearns and (more importantly) what kind of value is he going to have if we're asking these same questions next year?

Yes, how soon we forget the do-next-to-nothing DOB years (2 of them). The REDs had the 13th best record in the NL in 2003. The 10th best in 2004. The 13th best again in 2005. And didn't the 2005 club set (or come close) a team record for HRs... mostly w/out AK?

Starting pitchers approx. ERA: 2003 = 5.77 ; 2004 = 5.23 ; 2005 = 5.39.

Obviously the starting pitching was a REAL PROBLEM after the 2003 season. It REMAINED a problem in 2004 & 2005. So what did DOB do to improve the 5.77 ERA that he inherited? Well...

2004
4-22-2004 - Pickup FA Jason Romano.
5-11-2004 - Releases Jimmy Haynes.
6-19-2004 - Trade Gabe White to NYY for pitcher Charlie Manning. Manning goes back to the Yanks after the season.
7-30-2004 - Trade Todd Jones to PHI for Josh Hancock and Anderson Machado.
7-31-2004 - Pickup FA Darren Bragg.
8-10-2004 - Trade Cory Lidle to PHI for minor leaguers Javon Moran (OF, Chatt) & Joe Wilson (P, Dayton). Also get Elizardo Ramirez (yehaw!).
9-3-2004 - Hummel lost to BOS on waivers. Claim pitcher Juan Padilla off waivers from NYY (goes to Mets after season).

2005
Offseason - Signs Ortiz, Milton, Rickey Stone, Aurilla & Randa.
5-20-2005 - D. Jimenez DFA.
5-22-2005 - D. Graves DFA.
7-19-2005 - A. Machado DFA.
7-23-2005 - Trade Randa to SD for minor league pitchers Travis Click & Justin Germano.

Keep reading those wonderful deals and wonder why this organization has not improved in the minors or big leagues.

And during this time, 2004 & 2005, how much did AK contribute (whether his fault or not... it is about production)? How many "good" OFs did the team have compared to how many "good" pitchers they had?

And keeping AK over getting a "legit" starter is considered a good move? I can understand those who like AK (like many liked Casey). I never like it when a REDS player that has been with the team for a time is sent packing. But the team will never get better with an ERA of 5.00+. How many years of this does it take for people to see that "taking a chance" is better than another 5.00+ ERA with a bunch of great young OFers? Doing nothing to improve your REAL PROBLEM keeps you at 10th - 13th best in your own league. DOB did next-to-nothing other than the Milton signing ("legit" starter). And many here questioned that signing when it was made.

Good pitching beats good hitting. I am sure many of us have heard this statement.

buckshotrod
01-25-2006, 10:33 PM
You all better keep in mind the bullpen needs to be improved..would be nice to include one in a deal if possible.....

harangatang
01-25-2006, 10:41 PM
2005
Offseason - Signs Ortiz, Milton, Rickey Stone, Aurilla & Randa.

DanO traded Dustin Moseley for Ortiz last year.

BigRed
01-25-2006, 10:45 PM
I think that the money has got to be the problem. Clement is a huge risk for that kind of money. I wouldn't think that Castellini would want to take that big of a risk this early unless Boston is eating a significant amount of cash. However, I would lean toward Westbrook with the lower salary and being a groundball pitcher. We all know that flyball pitchers don't fair very well at Great American. See Eric Milton's stats for 2005. OUCH!

RedFanAlways1966
01-25-2006, 10:49 PM
DanO traded Dustin Moseley for Ortiz last year.

Yes, you are right. And that might be considered worse than signing him as a FA.

Barbarossa
01-25-2006, 11:14 PM
To Cincinnati
SP Clement
or
Sp Westbrook & prospect

Any idea who the prospect might be?

Doubt anyone knows at this stage of the talks but I did see a couple interesting names mentioned while reading the Cleveland board. They seem to think Clement is too expensive for the Reds and Westbrook would be better suited to our ballpark. They could get Clement if they wanted him but the talk on the street is they will offer Weaver the same one year deal they had with Millwood after they trade Westbrook. So if true, it would seem they would be eager to deal Westbrook to the Reds. Two prospects mentioned on the Tribe's board are Dittler and Snyder. Both are in AA. Jake Dittler is a right handed pitcher and has decent numbers, probably be ready in 07. Brad Snyder is a lefthanded hitting center fielder. A power hitter with some speed. He too could be ready in 07 IMHO. The fans of both the Sox and the Tribe really want this trade. The Reds are lucky to be involved. I'm leaning towards the Westbrook + prospect deal, that contract of Clement scares me.

Fenway
01-25-2006, 11:38 PM
A couple of observations from someone who saw Clement pitch quite a bit in 2005:

Much has been made of his 1st half/ 2nd half splits. The numbers are somewhat deceiving as well. I can tell you that Clement had some stretches when he looked great in the 2nd half, then he'd be downright dreadful. This was, in part, due to poor defense and a shaky bullpen. An astounding number of his inherited runners were allowed to score by the bullpen. A fitting example of how Clement's 2nd half went, is one his last starts of the year, he was hammered for 5 or 6 runs in one inning, then was lights out the rest of the way. It was a strange year for him to say the least.

I can tell you that I see Clement as a #1/#2 starter if he does end up in Cincy. He has done very well limiting the longball (at the expense of his K-rate), and displayed very good stuff overall. A change back to the NL, and with a better defense behind him, he could very well be a 3.50 ERA guy, with a 150-50 K/BB.

Obviously, I'm not as down on Clement as some Sox fans, or Sox brass for that matter. I can tell you he has been shopped as a way of obtaining a CF, and the Sox are very high on Crisp coming to Boston. This 3 way deal is getting quite a bit of buzz here, it will be interesting to see what happens in the next day or two.

M2
01-26-2006, 12:25 AM
Of course he is. I actually don't think people are so concerned about Kearns exiting (I'm not), but Matt Clement is a monstrous, monstrous question mark that could curtail the likelihood of signing bona fide, no-question-about-it talent: Dunn and Lopez. I'm saying, if you're going to go risky, get guaranteed performance in return (Contreras, Zito). I actually doubt that even half of Clement's problems last year were attributable to the headshot--I just think he's getting older and less effective.

IMO, Clement's a better bet than Contreras. Clement's pitched well for years. Contreras has had one hot half season.

I saw Clement a lot last year and I'd love to see him in a Reds uniform. Obviously you want to make sure he's not carrying any significant physcial damage, but barring that I want him.

deltachi8
01-26-2006, 12:32 AM
Im with ya M2....

Sabo Fan
01-26-2006, 04:09 AM
Sabo Fan, my take is that Clement's way more of a sure thing on the mound than Kearns is at the plate.

You may be right about that, but my major issue with this trade isn't so much that Kearns could break out this year (though I'm cautiously optimistic about it), it's that it would tie up another $9-10 million or so in one guy who is, in my mind, a huge question mark. The Reds simply cannot afford to make another $10 million mistake, and there's enough in Clement's history to make me think that there is a strong possibility he could become one.

Now Kearns is a huge question mark as well, but he's a cheap one that there is very little downside to keeping. It's likely that the only type of pitcher Kearns can land you right now is someone in the Matt Clement-Jose Contreras-Carl Pavano category, meaning an underachieving, overpaid guy who cashed in on one good year. If that's the market, then I say stand pat and wait to see what kind of a first half Kearns has. His value can't get any lower than it is right now as far as I can tell, so there's little downside to holding on to him for the time being. If after the first half of the season he's played reguarly and is struggling, then I'm fine with taking the best offer out there. I'm confident enough in his actual ability and the perception that other clubs have of his ability that there will be a market for him at any point in the next year that is comparable to what it is now. I suppose that is something of a risk seeing as how he could implode completely, but it's a $1.25 million risk, way better for this club than a $10 million one that Clement presents.

Falls City Beer
01-26-2006, 09:08 AM
IMO, Clement's a better bet than Contreras. Clement's pitched well for years. Contreras has had one hot half season.

I saw Clement a lot last year and I'd love to see him in a Reds uniform. Obviously you want to make sure he's not carrying any significant physcial damage, but barring that I want him.

Really, just a half a year? I thought he was pretty darn good all year. As opposed to Clement who was pretty decent, but who stopped fooling batters altogether by the second half. Plus--Contreras' deal is cheaper and only one year. Clement's is two years, more expensive--plus, the guy kind of spits the bit during knuckle-down time, IIRC.

corkedbat
01-26-2006, 09:41 AM
Kearns, Milton, Merker and a prospect for Clement and Arroyo or Lester. The BoSox wouldn't do it, but I would. :D

Harang
Claussen
Clement
Williams
Arroyo

M2
01-26-2006, 09:54 AM
Really, just a half a year? I thought he was pretty darn good all year. As opposed to Clement who was pretty decent, but who stopped fooling batters altogether by the second half. Plus--Contreras' deal is cheaper and only one year. Clement's is two years, more expensive--plus, the guy kind of spits the bit during knuckle-down time, IIRC.

Actually I went back and looked at it and it turns out that it was in fact 2/3 of a good year. I remembered that in July Contreras was nothing to write home about and then he got crazy hot to close out the season. As it turns out, he had a solid April-May and a bad June-July, then he caught fire.

Contreras isn't cheaper. He's a lot older. Plus I don't care if it's a one-year deal he's on because I'd prefer a better pitcher thank you.

kbrake
01-26-2006, 10:03 AM
His value can't get any lower than it is right now as far as I can tell, so there's little downside to holding on to him for the time being. .

I think his value can get lower. Eventually this 'potential' effect is going to wear off. I think if Kearns dissapoints again this year he will be worth absolutely nothing. I am honestly suprised some of the names being mentioned in exchange for him. Now on the other hand if he goes out and explodes this year, we still lose games 10-6. I think we can afford to lose some offense, especially if it means adding some good pitching.

M2
01-26-2006, 10:05 AM
I think his value can get lower. Eventually this 'potential' effect is going to wear off. I think if Kearns dissapoints again this year he will be worth absolutely nothing. I am honestly suprised some of the names being mentioned in exchange for him. Now on the other hand if he goes out and explodes this year, we still lose games 10-6. I think we can afford to lose some offense, especially if it means adding some good pitching.

Great post.

redsfan30
01-26-2006, 10:15 AM
I can tell you that Clement had some stretches when he looked great in the 2nd half, then he'd be downright dreadful. This the next day or two.
I think this has been the book on Matt Clement for years. He's either a no-hitter away from happening or he's a wild pitch away from happening. You never know what you're going to get from start to start.

But I still think it's worth taking a shot on. I'd rather take a flyer on Clement than Pavano, even if it meant dumping Milton.

Johnny Footstool
01-26-2006, 10:21 AM
I'm saying, if you're going to go risky, get guaranteed performance in return (Contreras, Zito).

Contreras posted a 5.50 ERA in 2004, but now he's "guaranteed performance?"


Plus--Contreras' deal is cheaper and only one year. Clement's is two years, more expensive

Why would you give up Kearns for only one year of a mediocre veteran?

Puffy
01-26-2006, 11:38 AM
Kearns and Milton (I repeat, Milton) for Pavano?

Sign me up! Pavano is a great pitcher for a small market - not sure he has the temperment for the NY market, so get him to Cincy and I think he reverts to 2004 form.

blumj
01-26-2006, 12:11 PM
Kearns and Milton (I repeat, Milton) for Pavano?

Sign me up! Pavano is a great pitcher for a small market - not sure he has the temperment for the NY market, so get him to Cincy and I think he reverts to 2004 form.

Clement and Pavano are an interesting comparison. Pavano may be a better pitcher, but he's also had a healthy season only 3 times out of his 7 in the league. Pavano has spent more time on the DL in 4 of his 7 seasons than Clement has in his entire 7 year career. Although both have 3-200+ IP seasons, Clement hasn't been under 169 IP in any of his others, while Pavano has had 3 seasons of 100 IP or fewer. I don't really think it's about the small market temperament, I think it's either about real physical damage or an inability to suck it up and pitch when something's a little ouchy.

Falls City Beer
01-26-2006, 12:48 PM
Clement's only been good three years at Wrigley, a pretty pitcher friendly park. He's been mediocre to awful everywhere else he's pitched. He's no longer young, and, frankly, he's gotta touch of the Tomko in him, IMO. The guy always seems to flee somewhat from his potential.

Contreras is older, that's true. And he's an injury risk (the reasons for his bad seasons in 2003-2004.) Now, presumably, he's healthy. And he had a way better season than Clement last season. Plus, he's shown, like El Duque, he knows how to win when the games matter.

ochre
01-26-2006, 12:50 PM
did Clement have many good outings after he was hit by that line drive?

Red Leader
01-26-2006, 12:55 PM
did Clement have many good outings after he was hit by that line drive?

Yeah, I believe someone posted in here already that he pitched well in August last year (he was hit at the end of July) only to have a miserable September.

redsfan30
01-26-2006, 12:57 PM
did Clement have many good outings after he was hit by that line drive?
http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_individual_player_gamebygamelog.jsp?playerID=1 36725&statType=2


He made 11 starts after getting hit on July 26th.

M2
01-26-2006, 12:58 PM
Wrigley's park rating for pitchers in Clement's three seasons there was 98, 99 and 105, hardly a pitcher's paradise.

I seem to remember Clement winning Game 4 of the NLCs in 1993, pitching Dontrelle Willis into the dirt in the process. Though I guess that doesn't count as stepping up. Meanwhile Contreras got pounded during the 2003 postseason, rope-a-doped the Red Sox in the ALDS last year (in a game where Clement had his wheels pop off) and then cruised up against two of the stupidest offenses you'll ever see in the postseason.

Puffy
01-26-2006, 01:00 PM
Clement and Pavano are an interesting comparison. Pavano may be a better pitcher, but he's also had a healthy season only 3 times out of his 7 in the league. Pavano has spent more time on the DL in 4 of his 7 seasons than Clement has in his entire 7 year career. Although both have 3-200+ IP seasons, Clement hasn't been under 169 IP in any of his others, while Pavano has had 3 seasons of 100 IP or fewer. I don't really think it's about the small market temperament, I think it's either about real physical damage or an inability to suck it up and pitch when something's a little ouchy.

Excellent points.

My thought process though is that Milton is included. Clement and Pavano are close to the same animal, although you do correctly point out that thus far Clement has been consistently more healthy.

I am all for Clement for Kearns. I'm really just saying that Kearns and Milton for Pavano equally works for me as we get rid of Milton (who I view as being nothing more that a 5+ pitcher the rest of his contract.

Johnny Footstool
01-26-2006, 01:19 PM
Pavano and Clement aren't nearly the same animal.

Pavano is a pitch-to-contact guy with low walk and low strikeout totals. The Reds are already stocked with guys who can't miss bats.

Clement has great stuff with a streak of wildness. The Reds desperately need a guy who can get 7-8 outs per game on his own without putting the ball into play.

TheGARB
01-26-2006, 01:29 PM
Excellent points.

My thought process though is that Milton is included. Clement and Pavano are close to the same animal, although you do correctly point out that thus far Clement has been consistently more healthy.

I am all for Clement for Kearns. I'm really just saying that Kearns and Milton for Pavano equally works for me as we get rid of Milton (who I view as being nothing more that a 5+ pitcher the rest of his contract.

I agree that if Milton is included in one of the deals, then that's probably the deal to make. These pitchers are close, but have some slight difference that could make a difference in their success with the Reds.

Both are groundball pitchers with decent K/BB rates, though Pavano is lower on the walk rate while Clement is higher on the strikeout rate.

The big difference between 2004 and 2005 for Pavano, besides the injury, were two things. His BABIP went up from .287 in '04 to .331 in '05, due in large part to playing in front of a weaker defense. The other difference is that his HR/9 rate went from 0.65 in 2004 to 1.53 in 2005, probably a function of leaving Dolphins stadium for half his starts. Those two factors concern me if he were to pitch in front of the Reds' defense in GABP.

Clement is a little more erratic, but he misses more bats. His big change last season was a drop in his K/9 from 9.45 to 6.88. He's struck out over 9 batters per 9 innings in 2 different seasons, but he's more likely to be in the 7-8 K/9 range. That would likely be the highest for any Reds starter.

Of the two, I think Clement is more suited for the Reds current situation. I think he will be less affected by the bad defense because of his ability to go after the strikeout. Though I am concerned about his drop in K-rate, especially after the concussion, as this graph shows:

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/271_pitcher_daily_2_full_20051002.png

But then Pavano has his own injury issues too, which is why these guys are being discussed for Kearns and not somebody with a more successful history.

KronoRed
01-26-2006, 01:38 PM
If we can get rid of Milton and get back any pitcher with a pulse I'd think we should do it.

blumj
01-26-2006, 01:38 PM
Clement has great stuff with a streak of wildness.

It is a rather large streak, though.

Johnny Footstool
01-26-2006, 01:47 PM
It is a rather large streak, though.

Granted, but his K/BB is still over 2, despite the drop in K/9 last season. When you strike out as many guys as Clement, that's an acceptable rate.

captain11
01-26-2006, 01:47 PM
The Reds have not had problems scoring runs; however, getting people out has been a different story. If the Reds can had proven starting pitching then they have to do it. They will find a way to score (especially at home), but this team continues to be two or three arms a way from competing into July or deeper.

Falls City Beer
01-26-2006, 01:50 PM
Look, I'm all for Kearns for Clement, provided the BoSox chip in some (okay, a lot of) cash. But I'd really rather just trade a few ugly salaries and pony up the cash for someone I know won't lay an egg. Psychologically, that's the last thing on earth this team needs is for Clement to come here and stink up the joint--which sits, at about a 50/50 proposition at this point, IMO--great odds if money doesn't matter; terrible odds if it does.

Doc. Scott
01-26-2006, 01:53 PM
Those of you who are dragging your feet on Kearns for Clement: how do you feel about Pena for Westbrook?

klw
01-26-2006, 01:53 PM
Current rumor at the Sons of Sam Horn is citing a Cleveland radio station saying discussions have Clement going to Cleveland with no Marte but the Tribe keep Clement and send Westbrook to the Reds for Kearns. But they all say this is pure rumor. So I am reporting a report of a rumor. Take it with many grains of salt.

http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=3104&st=1340

KronoRed
01-26-2006, 01:53 PM
Those of you who are dragging your feet on Kearns for Clement: how do you feel about Pena for Westbrook?
About the same, too much to pay for avgness.

Ravenlord
01-26-2006, 01:56 PM
i wonder if Kullman might be trying to scheme this into getting Clement and Westbrook?

blumj
01-26-2006, 02:02 PM
I meant to make this point before, but I don't think I did yet. Matt Clement pitched like the clear ace of the Red Sox staff for 3 months last year, when Schilling, Wells, and Miller were all injured, and their defense and bullpen were awful. He, along with really just a few other players, kept them in contention through the All Star break. Without him, they would never have stayed close enough to make the playoffs. Even if he's simply a habitual first half ace/second half dud, that first half can make a huge difference when a team is deciding whether they're buyers or sellers at the deadline.

redsfan30
01-26-2006, 02:04 PM
i wonder if Kullman might be trying to scheme this into getting Clement and Westbrook?
No way we could do that without giving up both Kearns and Pena. Milton would assuredly have to go. I like the idea though:

1. Harang
2. Clement
3. Westbrook
4. Claussen
5. Williams

Falls City Beer
01-26-2006, 02:07 PM
I meant to make this point before, but I don't think I did yet. Matt Clement pitched like the clear ace of the Red Sox staff for 3 months last year, when Schilling, Wells, and Miller were all injured, and their defense and bullpen were awful. He, along with really just a few other players, kept them in contention through the All Star break. Without him, they would never have stayed close enough to make the playoffs. Even if he's simply a habitual first half ace/second half dud, that first half can make a huge difference when a team is deciding whether they're buyers or sellers at the deadline.

Yeah, and Casey rips for half a season, every season.

You can carve it up how you wish, but the guy had a pretty mediocre season last year--and an atrocious end. And I seriously doubt the head doink had much to do with it--though I'm sure Clement would try to tell you otherwise.

Clement's never jazzed me very much, I guess. He's pretty vanilla. And I hate guys who quickly lose the K from their arsenal. I'll make a funny-money bet with anyone that Clement doesn't earn his salary next season. I'll say he puts similar numbers with a slight decline in K rate again.

halcyon
01-26-2006, 02:21 PM
I seem to remember Clement winning Game 4 of the NLCs in 1993, pitching Dontrelle Willis into the dirt in the process.

I don't doubt your memory, M2, but what in the world was Dontrelle doing pitching in the NLCS as an 11 year old?! ;)

redsfan30
01-26-2006, 02:23 PM
This from the Enquirer, posted just before 1:00....


Last Updated: 12:57 pm | Thursday, January 26, 2006


Reds: Kearns staying put
Kullman says no trade talks ongoing with Red Sox, Indians
BY JOHN FAY | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Brad Kullman, the Reds interim general manager, said today that there are no ongoing trade talks with the Boston Red Sox and Cleveland Indians regarding outfielder Austin Kearns.

"All the rumors are about what happened in the past," Kullman said.

The Reds reportedly turned down a trade last week than would have sent Kearns to Cleveland and Matt Clement to Cincinnati in a three-way deal. The Indians also reportedly offered Jake Westbrook for Kearns straight up.

Former Reds GM Dan O'Brien said no to both deals.

Kullman said he has been talking trades pretty much non-stop the last two days. He's contacted nearly every team in baseball. He's brought in all his top advisers.

But that does not mean something is about to happen.

"There's a chance," he said. "But I don't want to trade Austin Kearns. I don't want to trade Adam Dunn. There are a lot of players on our team that I like.

“But, the fact is we won 73 games last year and 76 two years ago. Do we want to bring back the same team, minus Sean Casey?"

Clement and Westbrook would upgrade the Reds' staff. But neither is coming off a great year. Clement was 13-6 with a 4.57 ERA last year with Boston.

His numbers fell off after he was struck in the face by a line drive.

Westbrook was 15-15 with a 4.49 ERA last year after going 14-9 with a 3.38 ERA in 2004.

Kullman is not shy about pulling the trigger on trades. He made the moves that brought pitchers Aaron Harang and Brandon Claussen to the Reds as interim GM in 2003.

Special assistants Johnny Almaraz, Gene Bennett, Leland Maddox, Larry Barton Jr. and Johnny Bench were brought into discuss possible moves.

"We've had some great discussions," Kullman said.

Kullman would like to build on the good will that has been generated since Bob Castellini took over as owner.

"We'd like to come out of the gate strong and be in the mix," he said. "Then maybe we could make a couple of moves at the trading deadline and be contenders."

E-mail jfay@enquirer.com

halcyon
01-26-2006, 02:27 PM
"I don't want to trade Adam Dunn. There are a lot of players on our team that I like."

I would prefer the quote to read, "I'm not going to trade Adam Dunn." and let other teams figure out that if they want him they're going to have to pony up quite a bit.

deltachi8
01-26-2006, 02:40 PM
Those of you who are dragging your feet on Kearns for Clement: how do you feel about Pena for Westbrook?

I like that one even less.

traderumor
01-26-2006, 02:45 PM
“But, the fact is we won 73 games last year and 76 two years ago. Do we want to bring back the same team, minus Sean Casey?"Ah, a realistic FO person. Almost makes me want to lay back and smoke a cigarette. :cool:

Red Leader
01-26-2006, 02:54 PM
Ah, a realistic FO person. Almost makes me want to lay back and smoke a cigarette. :cool:

Yeah, it would have been a better quote if he would have said "minus Sean Casey and with Dave Williams and Tony Womack."

M2
01-26-2006, 03:01 PM
I don't doubt your memory, M2, but what in the world was Dontrelle doing pitching in the NLCS as an 11 year old?! ;)

That guy is crazy precocious.

M2
01-26-2006, 03:02 PM
Yeah, and Casey rips for half a season, every season.

You can carve it up how you wish, but the guy had a pretty mediocre season last year--and an atrocious end. And I seriously doubt the head doink had much to do with it--though I'm sure Clement would try to tell you otherwise.

Clement's never jazzed me very much, I guess. He's pretty vanilla. And I hate guys who quickly lose the K from their arsenal. I'll make a funny-money bet with anyone that Clement doesn't earn his salary next season. I'll say he puts similar numbers with a slight decline in K rate again.

Three mythical pints of beer says the K rate goes up.

REDREAD
01-26-2006, 03:04 PM
"There's a chance," he said. "But I don't want to trade Austin Kearns. I don't want to trade Adam Dunn. There are a lot of players on our team that I like.


I hope that's just posturing to the media, because if Kulllman doesn't trade someone he likes, we're headed for another disaster.

NewEraReds
01-26-2006, 03:06 PM
Yeah, it would have been a better quote if he would have said "minus Sean Casey and with Dave Williams and Tony Womack."
that shows you how he feels about those 2. not high ;)

NewEraReds
01-26-2006, 03:08 PM
I hope that's just posturing to the media, because if Kulllman doesn't trade someone he likes, we're headed for another disaster.
i still think kearns could be an outstanding of. i know, the key word is could. but i just think so highly of him. now trading him now may prove to be smart. or keeping him could prove to be smart. only time will tell. want to be a gm and have your job hinge on stuff that could go either way ;)

Red Leader
01-26-2006, 03:08 PM
I hope that's just posturing to the media, because if Kulllman doesn't trade someone he likes, we're headed for another disaster.

I'm pretty sure that's what it is. I think I remember him (Kullman) saying that he liked Aaron Boone and Jose Guillen, too, particularly Boone, but that didn't stop him from dealing either of them.

Caveat Emperor
01-26-2006, 03:17 PM
I'm pretty sure that's what it is. I think I remember him (Kullman) saying that he liked Aaron Boone and Jose Guillen, too, particularly Boone, but that didn't stop him from dealing either of them.

With as much as Austin Kearns' name has come up in the last 48 hours or so, Kullman had to make some sort of statement.

First, he has to protect the value of Austin Kearns and not let it seem like he has to deal him right now. If teams think he's under marching orders from Casty to get rid of him for pitching, it's going to hurt the potential return. The threat (as toothless as it may be) has to at least exist that he'll just take his ball and go home.

Second, he has to at least save some face with Austin if he comes back to the team. Nothing says "we love you as a player" like shopping you to all 31 other teams and seemingly retaining him only because you couldn't get enough in return for him.

It's all calculated spin.

Big Donkey
01-26-2006, 04:21 PM
Big Donkey, or any other baseball insiders...

Have you heard anything about a Kearns/Milton to the New York Yankees for Carl Pavano trade? If not, see if there is any possible truth to it.

What I hear is that Cashman has been coveting Kearns for some time now, even tried to acquire him back when the Reds optioned him to AAA, but DanO wouldn't pull the trigger on a deal. Now hearing that Kearns is available and DanO is no longer around, and with the Yankees having so many starters it is being said that they approached the Reds about a potential deal involving Carl Pavano, but that the Reds would want the Yankees to take Eric Milton's contract (a la Mike Lowell to Boston in the Josh Beckett deal) in order to offset Pavano's contract and dump Milton's.

Now, I don't know if there is any truth to it, but I'm curious if you've heard that it is being discussed. If there is truth to this rumor, I definately like getting Pavano and dumping Milton a lot better than just getting either Clement or Westbrook.

Here's the latest I know on everything:

Sava, I haven't really heard anything about New York, to be honest with you. I do know they've been interested in Kearns in the past as you mentioned, so this is quite plausible, but I haven't heard anything specific regarding Pavano, Milton, Kearns. Doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed or won't happen, but nothing's come my way on this angle.

Latest word is Kearns is being asked about by a lot of teams, but Kullman is doing a good job of not making it look like they're just itching to get rid of him. They only want quality, and he said today that, truth be told, he'd rather hang onto Kearns and probably won't trade him. Is this a smokescreen, or truth? I know that he personally thinks a lot of Kearns, especially his defense, so I can believe that he'd rather hang onto him, but if he can get the right deal, he will.

Clement is too expensive, and I've heard vascillating reports on whether BOS is willing to include cash or not and the three-team deal is mostly off the table now though it could open back up. But it looks like there's nothing really there on a three-team deal, and, in fact, I've heard today that BOS may be talking with PHI themselves now, offering Guillermo Mota (provided his physical is clean after all) for Jason Michaels.

This could leave CIN and CLE to still talk amongst themselves, and for Kearns, CIN wants another prospect along with Westbrook, and CLE probably won't do that. CLE has had interest in Wily Mo Pena in the past, so there's a possibility it could be a deal involving him before all is said and done but I can't say anything has happened regarding him.

That's the latest, I definitely am keeping my eyes and ears open.

Johnny Footstool
01-26-2006, 04:26 PM
Three mythical pints of beer says the K rate goes up.

Mmmm...mythical beer...

timmario66
01-26-2006, 05:39 PM
From ESPN.com today:


The chances of Coco Crisp landing in Boston seem to be shrinking by the hour.

The Red Sox and Indians continued to talk to each other -- as well as to a potential third club, the Reds -- on Thursday. But there were indications that the Indians were beginning to have second thoughts about dealing Crisp.

An official of one team that spoke with the Indians reported Thursday he got the impression the odds of Cleveland trading Crisp had sunk below 50-50.

Nevertheless, the Indians and Red Sox were still discussing ways they could rework the six-player trade that collapsed Tuesday over concerns about the health of reliever Guillermo Mota.

Multiple sources say Mota didn't technically "fail" his physical with the Indians. But his examination raised enough questions that the Indians have told Boston they will keep Mota only if the Red Sox upgrade the rest of the package, which originally had Mota, third-base prospect Andy Marte and catching prospect Kelly Shoppach heading for Cleveland, with Crisp, reliever David Riske and catcher Josh Bard landing in Boston.

The Red Sox, however, prefer not to trade away one of their top young pitching prospects, Manny Delcarmen, whom Cleveland likes. So it appears Boston has turned its attention back to Cincinnati to see if it can put together a deal for left fielder Austin Kearns. The Red Sox then would turn around and deal Kearns to Cleveland for Crisp, with several other players (yet to be determined) also switching area codes.
Cleveland also is believed to have talked directly with the Reds about Kearns. While interim GM Brad Kuhlman has told a number of teams this week that he has the authority to make a trade, other baseball people who have talked to new Reds owner Bob Castellini say Castellini is reluctant to rush into a major deal just days after taking over the club.
The team that may come out worst in all of this, though, is the Phillies. Had the original trade gone through, they would have wound up trading outfielder Jason Michaels to Cleveland for reliever Arthur Rhodes.

But an official of one team in touch with the Phillies said they were "not real optimistic" about coming away with Rhodes or any other reliever, because they feared their portion of the trade was "disintegrating." That's because if Cleveland holds onto Crisp or winds up dealing for an outfielder like Kearns, it no longer would need Michaels. The Phillies then would probably hang onto Michaels until spring training and shop him for a setup man in the spring.

Nugget
01-26-2006, 07:28 PM
I don't think that its worth tying up a commitment to Clement. He is not worth it. Its almost like the Weaver fever - doing the deal for the sake of doing one.

NewEraReds
01-26-2006, 07:32 PM
no doubt, though i dont mind getting him. i just am really high on kearns. not if we can get cleveland to give us a few of their studs, including a young catcher, i may waver some ;)

Red Heeler
01-26-2006, 08:12 PM
What Kullman ought to be doing is selling Boston on Ken Griffey Jr. as the answer to their CF woes. Sure, he isn't a stolen base threat like Crisp. Who needs stolen bases with a 3, 4, 5 of Junior, ManRam, and Pappy? Griffey for Clement takes the monetary risk out of the equation for Cincy.

kbrake
01-26-2006, 08:24 PM
I really dont see Griffey agreeing to a trade anywhere now, at least I wouldnt. He spent the entire first half of his contract in Cincinnati with Linder, John Allen, JimBo, BaBoone, O'Brien, and Miley and now that it looks like things might begin to turn around and we have compentent people running things (exclude allen) I would expect Griffey to put an ax on any trade out of town. Besides that you guys have to be willing to part with something you value. You dont want Griffey as much as Kearns? Well neither will anyone else. I know its not fun to trade a Kearns especially because we probaly havent seen all that he can do, but if it improves the pitching which Clement or even Westbrook for that matter would you have to make the move.

Redus
01-26-2006, 09:25 PM
And don't ask about them. :)
That rubs some people the wrong way
My bad...I didnt mean anything buy it...just was wondering aloud. Sorry folks:beerme:

Maldonado
01-26-2006, 09:28 PM
"Yeah, Clement's expensive and he fell off the table pretty hard. I'm all for gambling--just not with that kind of cash commitment."

Theory about Clement - he was hit in the head pretty hard at a game in Tampa, and he hasn't been the same since. If it wasn't too serious an injury he possibly could've bounced back and he could be the effective pitcher he once was.

Red Heeler
01-26-2006, 11:27 PM
I really dont see Griffey agreeing to a trade anywhere now, at least I wouldnt. He spent the entire first half of his contract in Cincinnati with Linder, John Allen, JimBo, BaBoone, O'Brien, and Miley and now that it looks like things might begin to turn around and we have compentent people running things (exclude allen) I would expect Griffey to put an ax on any trade out of town. Besides that you guys have to be willing to part with something you value. You dont want Griffey as much as Kearns? Well neither will anyone else. I know its not fun to trade a Kearns especially because we probaly havent seen all that he can do, but if it improves the pitching which Clement or even Westbrook for that matter would you have to make the move.

If Griffey has any competetive spirit at all, he would welcome the chance to play for a championship. He has to be realistic enought to see that it is not likely to happen in Cincy during his remaining time.

If money were not an issue (like, say, in Boston) I would much rather have Griffey than Kearns. Griffey has put up numbers in his career that Kearns has never shown even pre Ray King. I also would not give Kearns any edge in the injury department, either.

buckeyenut
01-27-2006, 07:51 AM
Marte, Shoppach, Lester and others all have interest for me from BOS for Kearns.

I actually wouldn't mind picking up Marte, moving him or EE to 2B from 3B and moving Freel to OF every day.

Marte is probably a longshot because I think they want to do Marte and Kearns for Crisp and stuff, which is highway robbery.

We ought to just offer Freel for Marte and Delcarmen and go from there. Freel is everything Crisp is, if not better as a CF/Leadoff.

donnelly_31
01-27-2006, 11:05 AM
I think Clement would be great in a Reds uni. Get him back to the National League where he is familiar. Plus he had a low 3's ERA with the Cubs the year before last, he just had horrible run support. To say the very least the Reds can offer run support

Heath
01-27-2006, 11:14 AM
I think Clement would be great in a Reds uni. Get him back to the National League where he is familiar. Plus he had a low 3's ERA with the Cubs the year before last, he just had horrible run support. To say the very least the Reds can offer run support

Replace "Clement" with "Womack".

Pass.

ED44
01-27-2006, 11:15 AM
Marte, Shoppach, Lester and others all have interest for me from BOS for Kearns.

I actually wouldn't mind picking up Marte, moving him or EE to 2B from 3B and moving Freel to OF every day.

Marte is probably a longshot because I think they want to do Marte and Kearns for Crisp and stuff, which is highway robbery.

We ought to just offer Freel for Marte and Delcarmen and go from there. Freel is everything Crisp is, if not better as a CF/Leadoff.

I am with you on this one. Boston has several guys that interest me, moreso than Clement. I like Shoppach, Marte & Lester (even though I am not sure Boston is willing to deal him either...ala Papelbon). Clement's salary and inconsistency worry me. I would rather see AK in a Reds uniform with the possibility of boosting his trade value, than taking on Clement. Now if Wily Mo was their interest...

KronoRed
01-27-2006, 11:21 AM
I don't buy that NL/AL thing, only difference is the NL plays the game right and the AL runs a DH up there..how is that different to a pitcher pitching?

MikeS21
01-27-2006, 11:36 AM
I don't buy that NL/AL thing, only difference is the NL plays the game right and the AL runs a DH up there..how is that different to a pitcher pitching?
Most DH's are more proficient with a bat than are pitchers. Obviously, not all NL pitchers are easy outs, but I imagine any pitcher would rather face a pitcher than a designated hitter.

savafan
01-27-2006, 12:04 PM
I don't buy that NL/AL thing, only difference is the NL plays the game right and the AL runs a DH up there..how is that different to a pitcher pitching?


The NL is more of a smallball style of baseball, using the stolen base, get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in. In the AL it is homerpalooza.

lollipopcurve
01-27-2006, 12:08 PM
I like Shoppach, Marte & Lester

I like Lester. I think Marte has been overrated, and I want no part of Shoppach (slow bat).

ED44
01-27-2006, 12:28 PM
I like Lester. I think Marte has been overrated, and I want no part of Shoppach (slow bat).

I think Shoppach would be a good pick up. He may have a slow bat, but hitting improves with experience/repetition. I would have never expected for Larue to have a season like he had last year based on his early years. As for Marte, he could very easily be overrated, but he would be an improvement to our ML system and his talent can't be overlooked, imo. I would love to get Lester, but I just don't see us prying him away. From things I have read, both he & Papelbon are untouchable...unfortunately.

I tend to overvalue our players (at times) and expect more in return than they are probably worth. I just don't see AK for Clement as a benefit for the Reds in the long haul.

Ravenlord
01-27-2006, 12:33 PM
The NL is more of a smallball style of baseball, using the stolen base, get 'em on, get 'em over, get 'em in. In the AL it is homerpalooza.
HR
NL—2580
AL—2437

SB
NL—1349
AL—1216

SF
NL—669
AL—646

SH
NL—1151
AL—469

R
NL—11535
AL—10067

savafan
01-27-2006, 12:59 PM
HR
NL—2580
AL—2437

SB
NL—1349
AL—1216

SF
NL—669
AL—646

SH
NL—1151
AL—469

R
NL—11535
AL—10067

That doesn't totally disprove what I said. The American League is just really bad at executing their style of play.

11BarryLarkin11
01-28-2006, 07:32 PM
Kearns for Clement just isn't worth it. It's not a deal that is going to maximize the value of our assets.

deltachi8
01-28-2006, 08:12 PM
Except the "asset" Kearns has a diminished value except for many on this board.