PDA

View Full Version : Ken Rosenthal's latest on Kearns/Westbrook



Strikes Out Looking
02-04-2006, 10:39 AM
According to him, it's a bad deal for the tribe!


The Indians still would like to add a corner outfielder between now and the July 31 non-waiver deadline. Right-hander Jake Westbrook probably would have been too high a price for Reds outfielder Austin Kearns. Westbrook, 28, has worked more than 210 innings each of the past two seasons and is signed for $10 million over the next two. Kearns, 25, has yet to put together a full season of production ...

MattyHo4Life
02-04-2006, 10:43 AM
I have to agree with him. As I've said before I just think most Reds fans overvalue Kearns. Most teams are interested in Kearns because of his potential, but nobody is going to give much for him.

Superdude
02-04-2006, 10:47 AM
<<<<<<<<<<Most teams are interested in Kearns because of his potential, but nobody is going to give much for him.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's why we shouldn't trade him.

KronoRed
02-04-2006, 10:54 AM
That's why we shouldn't trade him.
Exactly.

Ask for a lot or keep him, no rush to deal him for junk we already have

RANDY IN INDY
02-04-2006, 10:59 AM
Amen, to that, Krono.:thumbup:

lollipopcurve
02-04-2006, 11:05 AM
Time will tell if Westbrook would have been too much to pay. As WOY has often said, you pay for future production, not past production.

MattyHo4Life
02-04-2006, 11:33 AM
<<<<<<<<<<Most teams are interested in Kearns because of his potential, but nobody is going to give much for him.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's why we shouldn't trade him.

The problem is that he may never live up to that potential. Kearns value is down because he has struggled the last couple of years. If other GMs thought he was a sure thing, then they would be making big offers for him. A lot of players have potential, but most of them never live up to that potential.

MattyHo4Life
02-04-2006, 11:34 AM
Exactly.

Ask for a lot or keep him, no rush to deal him for junk we already have

How many Reds pitchers are better than Westbrook?

westofyou
02-04-2006, 11:41 AM
The problem is that he may never live up to that potential. Kearns value is down because he has struggled the last couple of years. If other GMs thought he was a sure thing, then they would be making big offers for him. A lot of players have potential, but most of them never live up to that potential.


True, his prior path Kaline, McReynolds is in danger of becoming Tom Brunansky or even worse Phil Plantier.

However what's so freaking special about Westbrook? He's had one decent season that looks as though it was somewhat lucky too...Kent Bottenfield lucky or good pitcher lucky?


2004-2005

YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
2004 Indians 26 14 9 .609 33 30 5 0 2 215.2 208 95 81 61 116 3.38 28
2005 Indians 27 15 15 .500 34 34 2 0 0 210.2 218 121 105 56 119 4.49 -9
TOTALS 29 24 .547 67 64 7 0 2 426.1 426 216 186 117 235 3.93 19
LG AVERAGE 24 24 .502 2 0 426.1 441 231 213 151 299 4.50 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
2004 Indians 19 8.68 11.43 4.84 2.55 1.90 1 4 3 5 895 1 15 8
2005 Indians 19 9.31 12.00 5.08 2.39 2.13 0 3 3 7 895 0 14 16
TOTALS 38 8.99 11.72 4.96 2.47 2.01 1 7 6 12 1790 1 29 24
LG AVERAGE 53 9.32 12.89 6.31 3.18 1.98 1 15 10 18 1846 2

dougdirt
02-04-2006, 11:43 AM
MattyMo4life, I say for sure Harang and Claussen. Maybe Williams, have to see how he reacts to this park and this defense.

KronoRed
02-04-2006, 11:48 AM
How many Reds pitchers are better than Westbrook?
Harang for sure.

I'm not impressed with his win totals, his other numbers frighten me, I think in GAB he gets beat all over the place.

kbrake
02-04-2006, 12:45 PM
If Kearns is only getting Westbrook now what will he be worth after another season like last? This team has plenty of offense, it would hurt a lot more to miss a good Westbrook season then a good Kearns season.

MattyHo4Life
02-04-2006, 12:55 PM
Harang for sure.

I'm not impressed with his win totals, his other numbers frighten me, I think in GAB he gets beat all over the place.

I agree that Harang is easily better than Westbrook. I don't think the Reds have another Starter that is better than him. So the Reds would be recieving the second best pitcher on their staff for a player that has struggled for the last two years.

I'm not impressed with Westbrook either, but Kearns hasn't done much to impress anybody the last two years.

MattyHo4Life
02-04-2006, 12:56 PM
If Kearns is only getting Westbrook now what will he be worth after another season like last? This team has plenty of offense, it would hurt a lot more to miss a good Westbrook season then a good Kearns season.

I don't think the Reds would get anythign for him if he had another season like last year. He'll be a year away from Free Agency, and nobody would even trade Westbrook for him.

westofyou
02-04-2006, 01:05 PM
If Kearns is only getting Westbrook now what will he be worth after another season like last? This team has plenty of offense, it would hurt a lot more to miss a good Westbrook season then a good Kearns season.

From a year ago:


Jake Westbrook and the Indians today agreed to a two year deal with a club option for the 2007 season. The deal guarantees Jake $2.9M in 2005, $4.25M in 2006, and there is a club option for 2007 worth $5.6M. There is a buyout for $350,000, and there are plenty of escalator clauses. The total guarantee is $7.5M over two seasons.

This team doesn't have plenty of money and they sure need to not pay players for something they aren't.

Westbrook has a back loaded contract and that's part of the reason they want to move him... because paying for average shouldn't cost more than what you're getting in return.

So essentially it's a crapshoot of 2.4 extra million doallars this season, 4.25 for Jake with buyouts and an option to sign the guy for 2007 at 5.6 million vs 1.85 for Kearns with the opportunity to control his destiny as a player for 2 more years.

It looks like a sucker bet to me, Westbrook could improve but his cost will escalate and in 2008 he's off the books. But then again he could suck and by teh end of the year with buyouts and such you end up spending 3 million extra bucks for something that wasn't worth the cost or the body it took to get him.

traderumor
02-04-2006, 01:24 PM
I have to agree with him. As I've said before I just think most Reds fans overvalue Kearns. Most teams are interested in Kearns because of his potential, but nobody is going to give much for him.Good GMs do. Bad GMs make deals like Westbrook for Kearns. So I'm surprised O'Brien didn't pull the trigger ;)

M2
02-04-2006, 02:51 PM
How many Reds pitchers are better than Westbrook?

Harang for sure and maybe Claussen. Given Claussen's cost, I'd rather have Claussen. Though it's a bad question to ask. The Reds shouldn't be in the practice of relativism. That's how you wind up with crazy schemes like Dave Williams for Sean Casey or paying Eric Milton to be your ace.

Unless a pitcher profiles as someone with a good shot to be as good as Harang or better, then the Reds shouldn't give up much in the way of resources to get him.

I understand that Kearns may not be setting people on fire, but I don't think it's a stretch to say he's at least a Reggie-Sanders-level OF. A guy like that can help your team, a fact I'm sure you can attest to.

There's a lot of teams out there with lousy offenses (the Indians however aren't one of them). Kearns could provide a healthy boost for those clubs. IMO, what a lot of teams want with Kearns is something for nothing. They figure they can snag all that potential, catch him at just the right moment and venture little in return.

The Reds can't afford that. They're talent poor. A pitcher who finds as many bats as Westbrook could blow up at any time, leaving the Reds holding an empty and expensive bag. If the Reds don't get something substantial when they move their OF bats then this is going to be a lost decade.

It makes more sense for the team to hold onto Kearns, hope he puts his game together and try to move him this summer. This is coming from a guy who fervently wishes Kearns would go elsewhere (he peeves me). Basically, if Kearns can't fetch a pitcher or pitching prospects about whom I can muster some excitement (and I've got none for Westbrook) then I'd hold him and hope his can raise his value. The Reds literally have nothing to lose.

Puffy
02-04-2006, 03:20 PM
Harang for sure and maybe Claussen. Given Claussen's cost, I'd rather have Claussen. Though it's a bad question to ask. The Reds shouldn't be in the practice of relativism. That's how you wind up with crazy schemes like Dave Williams for Sean Casey or paying Eric Milton to be your ace.

Unless a pitcher profiles as someone with a good shot to be as good as Harang or better, then the Reds shouldn't give up much in the way of resources to get him.

I understand that Kearns may not be setting people on fire, but I don't think it's a stretch to say he's at least a Reggie-Sanders-level OF. A guy like that can help your team, a fact I'm sure you can attest to.

There's a lot of teams out there with lousy offenses (the Indians however aren't one of them). Kearns could provide a healthy boost for those clubs. IMO, what a lot of teams want with Kearns is something for nothing. They figure they can snag all that potential, catch him at just the right moment and venture little in return.

The Reds can't afford that. They're talent poor. A pitcher who finds as many bats as Westbrook could blow up at any time, leaving the Reds holding an empty and expensive bag. If the Reds don't get something substantial when they move their OF bats then this is going to be a lost decade.

It makes more sense for the team to hold onto Kearns, hope he puts his game together and try to move him this summer. This is coming from a guy who fervently wishes Kearns would go elsewhere (he peeves me). Basically, if Kearns can't fetch a pitcher or pitching prospects about whom I can muster some excitement (and I've got none for Westbrook) then I'd hold him and hope his can raise his value. The Reds literally have nothing to lose.

Exactly.

RFS62
02-04-2006, 03:55 PM
It makes more sense for the team to hold onto Kearns, hope he puts his game together and try to move him this summer. This is coming from a guy who fervently wishes Kearns would go elsewhere (he peeves me). Basically, if Kearns can't fetch a pitcher or pitching prospects about whom I can muster some excitement (and I've got none for Westbrook) then I'd hold him and hope his can raise his value. The Reds literally have nothing to lose.


Yep, even if we're in the market to move Kearns, the chance that he'll regain his pre-Kingburger form is worth the wait, I believe. Let's see what happens between now and July.

kbrake
02-04-2006, 05:09 PM
Saying no to Westbrook is fine, its really the Clement thing that still has me bent out of shape. If we hold onto Austin and at the all-star break he is having a pretty good year he better be moved.

KronoRed
02-04-2006, 06:30 PM
I don't think that Clement for Kearns rumor was true.

MattyHo4Life
02-04-2006, 07:23 PM
Good GMs do. Bad GMs make deals like Westbrook for Kearns. So I'm surprised O'Brien didn't pull the trigger ;)

Then there must not be any good GMs in the MLB.

traderumor
02-04-2006, 09:48 PM
Then there must not be any good GMs in the MLB.Not every team is looking for a corner outfielder and then a team that may be looking for a corner outfielder might not have any pitching help to offer. I think you've made the "Kearns is overvalued by Reds fans" position abundantly clear.

MattyHo4Life
02-04-2006, 10:01 PM
I think you've made the "Kearns is overvalued by Reds fans" position abundantly clear.

Good, because that's the opinion I have by talking to many Reds fans and other baseball fans. You've made it clear that you completely disagree with that opinion.

Jr's Boy
02-05-2006, 12:47 PM
If we hold onto Austin and at the all-star break he is having a pretty good year he better be moved.[/QUOTE]

Why?Explain your logic behind that statement.So if the Reds are out of it(and most likely will be)and Kearns is doing well ''he better be moved'' because he is having a great season and his future looks good.And knowing that Castillini
will do what it takes next year to improve this team pitching wise ,you would rather trade Kearns for a starter the Reds i'm speculating would more than likely have for a year or less.

SteelSD
02-05-2006, 01:56 PM
Good, because that's the opinion I have by talking to many Reds fans and other baseball fans. You've made it clear that you completely disagree with that opinion.

Here's the thing...

It's two years before Kearns will be eligible for Free Agency. So far, he's demonstrated that he's capable of putting up Isolated Discipline (IsoD) and Isolated Power (IsoP) right around 100 and 200 points respectively. That's a Big Deal for a player who's posted a career OPS above .800 (.821) before the age of 26 at the MLB level.

Now, flashback to a similar situation to Kearns circa right now- J.D. Drew's 2002 season (.252 BA, .347 OBP, .429 SLG). At that low point, considering his projectibles (high IsoD, high IsoP), price, and distance from FA do you swap him straight up for a more expensive MLB-average hurler with a low-K rate and a backloaded contract?

Or, would it be more prudent to wait until his abilities again produced the kind of numbers that would make him a lot more marketable IF you were set on moving him before his final year under your control in order to max out the return?

It seems to me there's a lesson to be learned from how the Cardinals waited on Drew. If all another team was offering to Jocketty was a Jake Westbrook clone for Drew after 2002, then I would have thought him nuts to accept that offer- even though the Cards tend to put defensive teams on the field that can make Jake Westbrook-type guys look good.

So they waited a year, Drew put up a near-.900 OPS (without playing a full season again) and they parlayed that into a similar MLB-average hurler on the cheap (Marquis) and a high-level prospect (Adam Wainwright). Regardless of whether Wainwright fully recovers from injury to throw a MLB pitch, they received far more in return than if they simply would have punted Drew after his 2002 season.

Any team looking to acquire Kearns is going to be paying for a highly-projectible skill set for a player who's yet to enter his age-prime seasons. The teams asking about him have probably also figured out that Kearns post-ASB numbers last year (.100 IsoD, .245 IsoP) are a pretty good indication that he's still "got it".

Has Kearns peformed to his potential over the past couple of seasons? Certainly not, regardless of the reason. But what you're seeing right now is other teams swooping in and trying to steal a highly-projectible talent at his low point. As others have aptly noted previously, there's no tangible benefit to swapping that kind of player unless you're getting value equal to or greater than his projectible future performance.

westofyou
02-05-2006, 02:03 PM
As others have aptly noted previously, there's no tangible benefit to swapping that kind of player unless you're getting value equal to or greater than his projectible future performance.

In a nutshell this is what "Moneyball" is about, not walks, not plate awareness or home runs and not stealing or sacrificing.

Extracting maximum value from assets and leveraging said assets to aquire profitable fuutures.

Problem is the assets are human beings awash in foibles and follys.

deltachi8
02-05-2006, 02:08 PM
In a nutshell this is what "Moneyball" is about, not walks, not plate awareness or home runs and not stealing or sacrificing.

Extracting maximum value from assets and leveraging said assets to aquire profitable fuutures.

Problem is the assets are human beings awash in foibles and follys.

Thank you for posting that. So many (not here) misunderstand what "Moneyball" really means. ::cough:: Joe Morgan ::cough::

toledodan
02-05-2006, 04:37 PM
Good, because that's the opinion I have by talking to many Reds fans and other baseball fans. You've made it clear that you completely disagree with that opinion.


you say the reds fans overvalue kearns but for some reason you keep begging for him. i'll take a pass on jake. if we trade kearns than we have only pena and griffey left in the outfield.

marcshoe
02-05-2006, 04:43 PM
you say the reds fans overvalue kearns but for some reason you keep begging for him. i'll take a pass on jake. if we trade kearns than we have only pena and griffey left in the outfield.

I'd be willing to bet the Reds would stick a third player out there. Otherwise, the pitching would only get worse. :p:

traderumor
02-05-2006, 04:58 PM
Good, because that's the opinion I have by talking to many Reds fans and other baseball fans. You've made it clear that you completely disagree with that opinion.Steel really cut to the chase as to the reasoning behind my opinion, right down to the example I would use.

MattyHo4Life
02-05-2006, 05:25 PM
you say the reds fans overvalue kearns but for some reason you keep begging for him. i'll take a pass on jake.

How am I begging for him? I don't care about the Indians at all. I'm a Cardinals fan 1st, a Reds fan second, and that's it. There was a rumor a few months ago that the Cards would trade Marquis for Kearns. I thought that would be a good move for the Cardinals to make only if they signed AJ Burnett. Once Burnett signed with Toronto, it became a a more questionable move for the Cardinals. The Cardinals no longer had that extra starter to swap for a player like Kearns that "might" be good. I've always liked Kearns, and to be honest, I probably value him more than a lot of fans of other teams. Would I trade Marquis for Kearns now? I'd think about it, and might do it. You can be sure that I'm in the minority though. Most Cardinal fans that I've asked would consider Marquis too high of a price to pay for Kearns.

Hondo
02-06-2006, 02:47 AM
I just want AK and Wily Mo to get 500+ AB's a piece this season and we'll all be gald they were the corner Outfielders for 2006 and Beyond...

JaredRoberts.com