PDA

View Full Version : Reds not done trading with Red Sox?



max venable
03-22-2006, 08:13 AM
This from the Boston Herald:

Boston and Cincinnati may not be done. The pitching-starved Reds have been eyeing relief pitcher Jermaine Van Buren, who was sent to the minors last week with the first round of cuts. The Sox are expected to trade Tony Graffanino within the next week

http://redsox.bostonherald.com/redSox/view.bg?articleid=131618&format=&page=3

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 08:15 AM
Graffanino? Sure we could use a solid, veteran second baseman / utility player on this team.

Don't know anything about Van Buren.

max venable
03-22-2006, 08:18 AM
Don't know anything about Van Buren.
http://www.soxprospects.com/players/vanburen-jermaine.htm

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 08:30 AM
Thanks, max. Certainly looks like a player that has some talent and isn't too far from being major league ready.

scounts22
03-22-2006, 08:49 AM
Do they want a veteran second baseman in return?? Cuz if so....:D

No, seriously, who would we be getting rid of?

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 08:52 AM
Do they want a veteran second baseman in return?? Cuz if so....:D

No, seriously, who would we be getting rid of?

I'm guessing some more chaff on the 40 man, a prospect. Dane Sardhina maybe? They just got Ross and Krivsky pretty much flat out said that they were going to risk losing Sardhina to waivers in an article yesterday re: Ross transaction. If it's Sardhina for Van Buren, sign me up.

Falls City Beer
03-22-2006, 08:56 AM
Maybe if the Reds acquire Van Buren, he and George Bush can throw out simultaneous first pitches, to see which fastball will have the better legacy. :)

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 09:04 AM
Maybe Germano or Elizardo? I could see both of them being moved this year since they were both O'Brien acquisitions, and neither one of them has a particularly high ceiling, or *has* to be kept for the team to be successful in the future.

Chip R
03-22-2006, 10:08 AM
Maybe if the Reds acquire Van Buren, he and George Bush can throw out simultaneous first pitches, to see which fastball will have the better legacy. :)

Maybe the Van Buren Boys will come see a game then. ;)

rdiersin
03-22-2006, 10:17 AM
Maybe the Van Buren Boys will come see a game then. ;)

So, does he only have 8 fingers then or know the secret sign?

Chip R
03-22-2006, 10:20 AM
So, does he only have 8 fingers then or know the secret sign?

If he only has 8 fingers, I know from whom he can get a couple extras.

http://www.mlb.com/images/players/action/ph_110134.jpg

traderumor
03-22-2006, 10:22 AM
Like the K ratio and three pitches. Really excelled as a reliever for the last two years after being a starter. Chris Booker's job is open in Louisville and you know one of the old men in the bullpen is going to flame or get traded. Give 'em back Dumatrait or Pelland.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 10:28 AM
So how come they couldn't figure out a way to attach this kid to the Wily Mo deal??? I mean, if they're still negotiating for Van Buren, why did they sign off on Arroyo?

traderumor
03-22-2006, 10:39 AM
So how come they couldn't figure out a way to attach this kid to the Wily Mo deal??? I mean, if they're still negotiating for Van Buren, why did they sign off on Arroyo?Hold up a deal for an addition to your rotation for a 25 year old minor league closer? Sounds like O'Brien's way of doing business.

TeamBoone
03-22-2006, 11:21 AM
Actually, the article didn't say the Reds were interested in Graffanino. That just seemed to be an add-on at the end.

Too bad Van Buren couldn't have been thrown into the WMP trade.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 11:27 AM
Hold up a deal for an addition to your rotation for a 25 year old minor league closer? Sounds like O'Brien's way of doing business.

Please. DanO's way of doing business (i.e. NOT doing business) was nothing like this.

If a 25 year old minor league closer is so insignificant, why wasn't Krivsky able to get him along with Pena? Why did Krivsky sign off on a deal and leave something like that still on the table? He took $1.5 million to go along with Arroyo, why not drop the cash and continue to negotiate for Van Buren?

Sounds like he bought a used car, then went back to negotiate for the car stereo. He should have bargained and got them both at once.

Danny Serafini
03-22-2006, 11:30 AM
It's more important to get Arroyo in now. There's no hurry with Van Buren.

KoryMac5
03-22-2006, 11:36 AM
It's more important to get Arroyo in now. There's no hurry with Van Buren.

Finally a voice of reason. We have such a log jam of relievers right now with shack, hammond, mercker, weathers, wagner, throw in burns who has had a great spring and there is no hurry to get Van Buren now.

vermonter
03-22-2006, 11:44 AM
I've actually only seen Van Buren throw one inning this spring, but what I saw looked real good. He only threw fastballs, but he throws a nice tight downhill fastball that seems to naturally break down and in against righties, and he seems to have real good control of it.

He has no real chance of making it to Boston this season, as the Sox probably have a better bullpen at the AAA level to begin the season than they do on the big club.

Since nobody has written about it here, I'll just recap his interesting history. After washing out of the Rockies organization as a starter, he pitched for a year (2003) in the Indy leagues before being signed by the Cubs and converted to relief pitching. He had two fairly awesome minor league seasons, and had a really successful stint with the Cubs at the end of last season. He was minor league reliever of the year for 2005. I have no idea why the Cubs traded him to Boston, but maybe you folks have a better idea of the inner workings of Dusty Baker's mind than I do.

At any rate, I think he has a really good chance to be a fine reliever if given a chance. I wouldn't think the Sox are asking for much more than a warm body for him in trade.

registerthis
03-22-2006, 11:49 AM
Offer Dane Sardinha straight up, see if they bite.

klw
03-22-2006, 11:50 AM
I have heard a few times that the Sox are looking for a backup catcher. Was the Ross deal a prerequisite for something Valentin based?

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 11:53 AM
I have heard a few times that the Sox are looking for a backup catcher. Was the Ross deal a prerequisite for something Valentin based?

I doubt it. I think they're happy with Valenin and LaRue, at least for now. I think Ross was brought in to get Sardhina out of here. They're going to send him through waivers anyway, maybe that's who they'll trade to BOS for Van Buren. Like I said, if that's the case, I'm all for it.

Wonder about timing here. I wonder if there was a hold up in the Basham / Ross trade that Wayne didn't think that was going to go through at the time of the WMP deal, so he didn't include Sardhina with WMP to get Van Buren back, and just decided to take cash to offset the salary, and then approach the Red Sox again after the Ross trade went through. The Ross trade didn't go through until the day after WMP was dealt.

vermonter
03-22-2006, 12:00 PM
I have heard a few times that the Sox are looking for a backup catcher. Was the Ross deal a prerequisite for something Valentin based?
That's entirely possible, but the prerequisite for being the Sox backup catcher is that he has to catch Tim Wakefield's knuckler every fifth day. I'm not sure if Valentin would fit that bill or not. I don't think mobility is his stong suit, but maybe he's wide enough to block the plate effectively.:)

The Sox have Josh Bard as the current backup, and he's done fairly well with the knuckler so far, but the Sox front office seems to have gone "roto-mad" and its possible that they would want the additional offense that Valentin would provide. I'm fairly baffled by recent events in the Sox F.O., so nothing would surprise me.

I would say that if its Valentin they are after, the offer would probably include more than Van Buren, but I have no idea who.

Its possible that the deal would be for Sardinha, or maybe even for Ross himself, since the Sox are looking for a AAA catcher since they really don't have one at this point. If its Ross, I have no idea why the Sox wouldn't have dealt directly with San Diego themselves, unless there is some subterranean animosity over the whole David Wells to San Diego farce that has been playing out for the past couple of months.

RedsManRick
03-22-2006, 12:06 PM
Please. DanO's way of doing business (i.e. NOT doing business) was nothing like this.

If a 25 year old minor league closer is so insignificant, why wasn't Krivsky able to get him along with Pena? Why did Krivsky sign off on a deal and leave something like that still on the table? He took $1.5 million to go along with Arroyo, why not drop the cash and continue to negotiate for Van Buren?

Sounds like he bought a used car, then went back to negotiate for the car stereo. He should have bargained and got them both at once.

Sounds to me like it went more like this:
Kriv: "I have $20,000 to buy that car and I'd like to have a sweet stereo in it"
Theo: "Well, the car costs $20,000 and the stereo is another $3,500."
Kriv: "C'mon, I've got the cash and I'm ready to buy. Can't we do both for 20?"
Theo: "Nope, I can put that stereo in another car and get full value for it. But I could move it for 22 flat"
Kriv: "Hmmm... sorry but I've only got 20 right now."
Theo: "That your jalopy out there? You sure it's gonna get you home? None of the other dealers have this model right now. But they might get some in stock in a few weeks. Maybe you wanna wait and go talk to them"
Kriv: (realizing Theo has a point and that the other dealers don't have a comprable car) "Alright, here's my 20 grand. Thanks for the car. But put that stereo on hold for me. I need to go talk to the Mrs. and I'll be back in a few days..."

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 12:12 PM
It's more important to get Arroyo in now. There's no hurry with Van Buren.

Ah, desperation on the part of Krivsky. That's what I've been saying all along. The Pena deal smacked of desperation. "We HAVE to get this deal done NOW!"

Nonsense. There was no real pressure to get Arroyo right away. Krivsky couldn't wait a week and figure out how to get Van Buren, too? That's poor negotiating.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 12:16 PM
Sounds to me like it went more like this:
Kriv: "I have $20,000 to buy that car and I'd like to have a sweet stereo in it"
Theo: "Well, the car costs $20,000 and the stereo is another $3,500."
Kriv: "C'mon, I've got the cash and I'm ready to buy. Can't we do both for 20?"
Theo: "Nope, I can put that stereo in another car and get full value for it. But I could move it for 22 flat"
Kriv: "Hmmm... sorry but I've only got 20 right now."
Theo: "That your jalopy out there? You sure it's gonna get you home? None of the other dealers have this model right now. But they might get some in stock in a few weeks. Maybe you wanna wait and go talk to them"
Kriv: (realizing Theo has a point and that the other dealers don't have a comprable car) "Alright, here's my 20 grand. Thanks for the car. But put that stereo on hold for me. I need to go talk to the Mrs. and I'll be back in a few days..."

Sounds like a transcript of how NOT to negotiate for a car. You end up spending more and not getting what you wanted.

That said, if the only cost is Dave Ross, then I'll recant and say Krivsky actually pulled off a good deal. But if he pays more than Ross, I'll chalk this one up as one of the few times I've actually been right about something.

blumj
03-22-2006, 12:17 PM
If this is a Sardinha for Van Buren swap, then I think it doesn't happen unless Sardinha can clear waivers, and that would be the holdup. Bard's going to catch Wake, it's way too late to start over now. They need depth at the position, but, short of getting Mirabelli back, that depth has to go to AAA. Wake would flip out completely if they pulled a switch on him now.

Gallen5862
03-22-2006, 12:20 PM
You can trade a player without him having to clear waivers.

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 12:26 PM
You can trade a player without him having to clear waivers.

The Padres just did, but I think Lancaster reported that the Reds already initiated putting Sardhina through waivers and that he should clear by tomorrow.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 12:31 PM
Ah, desperation on the part of Krivsky. That's what I've been saying all along. The Pena deal smacked of desperation. "We HAVE to get this deal done NOW!"

Nonsense. There was no real pressure to get Arroyo right away. Krivsky couldn't wait a week and figure out how to get Van Buren, too? That's poor negotiating.
Ever had a salesman promise he'd hold a car for you, then go back and he sold the sucker? The Reds are not the only team looking for league average starting pitching to upgrade or fill out their rotation.

blumj
03-22-2006, 12:37 PM
You can trade a player without him having to clear waivers.
My assumption was that Sardinha was out of options, and would need to clear before they could send him to AAA, and that the Red Sox would only want him if they could. I could be totally wrong here about any and all of that, though. But if that is the case, they would hardly want to trade for him only to lose him to a waiver claim.

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 12:42 PM
My assumption was that Sardinha was out of options, and would need to clear before they could send him to AAA, and that the Red Sox would only want him if they could. I could be totally wrong here about any and all of that, though. But if that is the case, they would hardly want to trade for him only to lose him to a waiver claim.

The Reds just did. Ross has to pass through waivers to be sent down. I'm not sure if the Pads would have sent him through waivers and he cleared, and then they dealt him to the Reds, if the Reds would have to send him through waivers again to send him down, but I think they would have to.

registerthis
03-22-2006, 12:42 PM
My assumption was that Sardinha was out of options, and would need to clear before they could send him to AAA, and that the Red Sox would only want him if they could. I could be totally wrong here about any and all of that, though. But if that is the case, they would hardly want to trade for him only to lose him to a waiver claim.

Why wouldn't they just claim him off of waivers?

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 12:45 PM
Ever had a salesman promise he'd hold a car for you, then go back and he sold the sucker? The Reds are not the only team looking for league average starting pitching to upgrade or fill out their rotation.

Sure. But I happen to think no other team was willing to offer as much as WMP for Arroyo.

Granted, it's hard to walk away when the deal's right in front of you and you've got a fat wallet full of WMP, but sometimes you've got to do just that.

Unless you're desperate.

Red Leader
03-22-2006, 12:46 PM
Why wouldn't they just claim him off of waivers?

To be sure that they get him.

A NL player has to pass through all NL teams first, and then all AL teams until Boston gets it's shot to put in a claim.

I'm not sure why the Reds didn't wait for the Pads to send Ross through waivers, however, since the Reds should have a fairly higher waiver claim spot and he wouldn't have had to pass through too many teams to get to them.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 12:49 PM
Sure. But I happen to think no other team was willing to offer as much as WMP for Arroyo.

Granted, it's hard to walk away when the deal's right in front of you and you've got a fat wallet full of WMP, but sometimes you've got to do just that.

Unless you're desperate.Or you've done your bluebook analysis and know that you're getting a fair deal and you really need that car, and the boot will come in handy as well. Sometimes folks are always looking for a better deal and end up riding a bike to work, and not by choice.

RedsManRick
03-22-2006, 12:51 PM
Sounds like a transcript of how NOT to negotiate for a car. You end up spending more and not getting what you wanted.

That said, if the only cost is Dave Ross, then I'll recant and say Krivsky actually pulled off a good deal. But if he pays more than Ross, I'll chalk this one up as one of the few times I've actually been right about something.

I agree that this isn't the way to negotiate. However, that's the scenario Krivsky was dealt. Theo knows that our pitching is horrible. He knows we don't have much to trade besides an outfielder. Everybody is pretending like Krivsky had all kinds of leverage here when the fact is he didn't. The Reds are the one up against a wall of horrible pitching and few tradable assets.

I would love to have seen us get more for Wily Mo. But value isn't solely judged by potential, it's also judged by risk. The fact is that while his potential is enormous, so is the risk. It's not like it's been a secret that we've been trying to move an outfielder. If there was a better deal out there to be had, I have to believe it would've been made.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 12:55 PM
If there was a better deal out there to be had, I have to believe it would've been made.

I guess that's where we differ. The way I see it, if you're dealing out of desperation, you always end up settling for less, and you never get the best deal.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 01:04 PM
I guess that's where we differ. The way I see it, if you're dealing out of desperation, you always end up settling for less, and you never get the best deal.Of course, first there has to be evidence of desperation...and that the deal apparently came together rather fast doesn't count. That's the nature of this business. Any GM that is gonna cut it has to have a value in mind for each of his players and have values of other players at his disposal in a rather short period of time. While you consider the one for one trade a sign of desperation, I see it as a sign of a GM who might just be willing to do something other than worry about how the deal will be taken by Cincy fandom.

RedsManRick
03-22-2006, 01:07 PM
I guess that's where we differ. The way I see it, if you're dealing out of desperation, you always end up settling for less, and you never get the best deal.

When you've been desperate for years on end, at some point maybe you just have to settle. For those who argue that we could just wait, our desperation for pitching wasn't going to go away by itself any time soon and everybody else knows we're desperate. Furthermore, what gives you the idea that this was borne out of desperation? We got a legitimate major league starter, signed for 3 years under market value. People want to believe that somehow that's not a valuable commodity -- that he's crap. If you want to see crap, look at the pitcher(s) who have been taking the mound for us.

You just made the argument that you should never trade for something you need unless you find somebody stupid enough not to use their leverage. I hope you enjoy the rainbows and butterflies that fill that world.

redsfan30
03-22-2006, 01:25 PM
I guess that's where we differ. The way I see it, if you're dealing out of desperation, you always end up settling for less, and you never get the best deal.
It's like I said earlier...if you think Wily Mo Pena was going to bring you back more than more than Bronson Arroyo, wake up. People need to stop over valuing thier favorite players (we're all guilty of it at some point).

As for criticising Wayne Krivsky for not getting Van Buren in the same deal: if a trade for Van Buren does indeed come to pass why would you criticise Krivsky for not getting this done all in one deal? That's baseless criticism in my opinion. What in the world does it matter if it takes one deal or two?

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 03:19 PM
It's like I said earlier...if you think Wily Mo Pena was going to bring you back more than more than Bronson Arroyo, wake up. People need to stop over valuing thier favorite players (we're all guilty of it at some point).

Rationalize all you want, but Krivsky still traded Pena in desperation. You never get the best return when trading in desperation.


As for criticising Wayne Krivsky for not getting Van Buren in the same deal: if a trade for Van Buren does indeed come to pass why would you criticise Krivsky for not getting this done all in one deal? That's baseless criticism in my opinion. What in the world does it matter if it takes one deal or two?

The whole point is that if Krivsky wanted Van Buren, he should have insisted that he be included in the deal. A good negotiator would have done so. But Krivsky caved.

If it takes two trades to get what you should have gotten in one, you've done a lousy job.

But as I said, if the Red Sox were simply waiting for the Reds to acquire the useless catcher Ross, then the two-deal thing doesn't bother me as much.

TRF
03-22-2006, 03:43 PM
If Krivsky pulls off a Ross for Van Buren trade, then the deal in essence becomes WMP and Basham for Arroyo, Van Buren and 1.5 mil. I'd be happy with that.

But as far as desperation goes, I'd say Theo was the desperate one, but had a better poker face. And if no secondary trade occurs, then my take is Theo bluffed and won this one.

registerthis
03-22-2006, 04:09 PM
But as far as desperation goes, I'd say Theo was the desperate one, but had a better poker face. And if no secondary trade occurs, then my take is Theo bluffed and won this one.

I guess it depends on how you define "secondary trade." I don't think Krivsky's done dealing by any means. But how many future deals can be tied to this one is open to debate.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 04:21 PM
Rationalize all you want, but Krivsky still traded Pena in desperation. You never get the best return when trading in desperation.
Saying it many times does not make it so. The one thing you cannot ultimately do in this or any other deal is know what the true motives were for doing this deal unless they are revealed by the party doing the deal. All we can do is look for cryptic signs with each move that is made to try and develop an MO for the guy.

To tell someone else they are rationalizing with their take on a deal implies that you have access to more and better information than they are using to form their opinion, which from what I've seen your entire premise revolves around your perceived value of WMP and Arroyo's low '05 K rate. Hardly enough evidence to accuse another of rationalizing. Since I see reasonable people coming up with diverging speculations, it is a bit much to accuse others of "rationalizing" with your own speculation as the standard of truth.

redsfan30
03-22-2006, 04:28 PM
Rationalize all you want, but Krivsky still traded Pena in desperation. You never get the best return when trading in desperation.
You've been making this statement for three days now. Your proof is...???


The whole point is that if Krivsky wanted Van Buren, he should have insisted that he be included in the deal. A good negotiator would have done so. But Krivsky caved.

If it takes two trades to get what you should have gotten in one, you've done a lousy job.
So if Van Buren is acquired in a seperate deal are you going to criticise Wayne Krivsky for it? If so, I'm sorry but in my opinion that's silly.

oneupper
03-22-2006, 04:59 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/mb8.gif

Serious Dude, this Van Buren.

BenHayes
03-22-2006, 04:59 PM
Darn i would hate to see Sardinha go. He reminds me of the days of
Dave Van Gorder when high draft catchers became average defensive backstops who have trouble hitting.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 05:03 PM
Saying it many times does not make it so. The one thing you cannot ultimately do in this or any other deal is know what the true motives were for doing this deal unless they are revealed by the party doing the deal. All we can do is look for cryptic signs with each move that is made to try and develop an MO for the guy.

That's exactly what I'm doing, and the signs aren't all that cryptic.


You've been making this statement for three days now. Your proof is...???

I've outlined my reasons very clearly. If you haven't understood them, or if you want to ignore them, there's nothing I can do about that.


So if Van Buren is acquired in a seperate deal are you going to criticise Wayne Krivsky for it? If so, I'm sorry but in my opinion that's silly.

I'm criticizing Krivsky for not getting more for Pena.

Why is it so hard to imagine that a GM worth his salt could hold out for Arroyo and another minor-league arm in exchange for Pena? As TRF has pointed out on the other forum, the return for Jose Guillen (who had just as much baggage as Pena, less upside, and was older when he was traded) was three pitchers.

It shouldn't take Krivsky two deals to acquire what he should have been able to get in one deal.

Especially when the throw-in is a medium-level semi-prospect like Van Buren.

KronoRed
03-22-2006, 05:07 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/mb8.gif

Serious Dude, this Van Buren.
I think we're getting the shaft

Heath
03-22-2006, 05:10 PM
I think we're getting the shaft

No this is Shaft.

http://www.spun.com/amgcover/dvd/full/t0/71/t07191dpfrb.jpg

VI_RedsFan
03-22-2006, 05:12 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/mb8.gif

Serious Dude, this Van Buren.

I thought this Van Buren kid was 25? :)

Heath
03-22-2006, 05:13 PM
[QUOTE=Johnny Footstool]Why is it so hard to imagine that a GM worth his salt could hold out for Arroyo and another minor-league arm in exchange for Pena? As TRF has pointed out on the other forum, the return for Jose Guillen (who had just as much baggage as Pena, less upside, and was older when he was traded) was three pitchers.[QUOTE]

Yeah, but Jose Guillen was a deadline deal with the A's when they were in desparation mode at the trading deadline.

And how good was that anyway - Harang obviously. Where's Joe Valentine & Jeff Bruckish now?

UPRedsFan
03-22-2006, 05:13 PM
I don't see this as a desperate trade. We wouldn't have gotten Papelbon or McArthy or Billingsley for Pena. Arroyo is a good return. He's younger and cheaper than Clement and I suspect will put up near similar results. 20 quality starts in the AL is nothing to sneaze at. He's a bonafide #2 or #3 on most staffs. He elevates our rotation to a much more respectable level with Harang and Claussen giving us 3 solid pitchers. As others have said if we can free up $ for a number one in free agency next year now we're in wild card territory and vying with the Cardinals for the division. A number one will be much more likely to agree to a deal with the Reds now that there's a solid core of starters and a powerful offense to provide support (in only someone can emerge this year as a servicable closer!)

Casey for Williams was more of a desperate trade but not Pena for Arroyo.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 05:16 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/mb8.gif

Serious Dude, this Van Buren.It looks like we found the missing money from the Treasury. With interest, it can probably pay off the national debt.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 05:20 PM
And how good was that anyway - Harang obviously. Where's Joe Valentine & Jeff Bruckish now?

Possibly where Van Buren will be in five years -- I don't know. But they were prospects, and the Reds had a chance to develop them into viable major league pitchers.

By settling for just Arroyo and not getting any prospects, the Reds deprived themselves of a chance, however slim, to develop another pitcher. They can't afford to deprive themselves of those chances.

I guess that's what bugs me most about this whole situation.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 05:21 PM
That's exactly what I'm doing, and the signs aren't all that cryptic.Then you must be Batman. Krivsky has made one move of significance to the big picture and you have developed an MO to the point of determining motive. I see a future in CSI for you ;)

KronoRed
03-22-2006, 05:22 PM
No this is Shaft.

http://www.spun.com/amgcover/dvd/full/t0/71/t07191dpfrb.jpg
Damn right

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 05:22 PM
Then you must be Batman. Krivsky has made one move of significance to the big picture and you have developed an MO to the point of determining motive. I see a future in CSI for you ;)

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 05:22 PM
Possibly where Van Buren will be in five years -- I don't know. But they were prospects, and the Reds had a chance to develop them into viable major league pitchers.

By settling for just Arroyo and not getting any prospects, the Reds deprived themselves of a chance, however slim, to develop another pitcher. They can't afford to deprive themselves of those chances.

I guess that's what bugs me most about this whole situation.They still can develop $1.5M into something useful.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 05:24 PM
They still can develop $1.5M into something useful.

Three extra beer stands, maybe.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 05:25 PM
No this is Shaft.

http://www.spun.com/amgcover/dvd/full/t0/71/t07191dpfrb.jpg
My dad got in trouble with my mom for taking me to see Shaft :laugh: I think it was the first time I saw a naked lady in a movie, or at least the first one I remember. Scarred for life. :)

traderumor
03-22-2006, 05:27 PM
Three extra beer stands, maybe.With our pitching, maybe that's the real answer. Sounds like an email campaign to me.

Doc. Scott
03-22-2006, 05:31 PM
Sure, Van Buren's (http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?5396)been dominant in the minors the past couple of seasons, but he walked nine in six innings with the Cubs at the end of last season (small sample size) and was unloaded immediately after to Boston for the dreaded "PTBNL or cash considerations". In other words, practically nothing.

Now a second organization is ready to unload the guy. He really can't be worth all that much, and I must admit that I'm a little surprised that Wayne Krivsky is seemingly interested in a guy who obviously doesn't impress the scouts too much. Although I also don't claim to have Kriv pegged already, either.

traderumor
03-22-2006, 05:34 PM
Sure, Van Buren's (http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?5396)been dominant in the minors the past couple of seasons, but he walked nine in six innings with the Cubs at the end of last season (small sample size) and was unloaded immediately after to Boston for the dreaded "PTBNL or cash considerations". In other words, practically nothing.

Now a second organization is ready to unload the guy. He really can't be worth all that much, and I must admit that I'm a little surprised that Wayne Krivsky is seemingly interested in a guy who obviously doesn't impress the scouts too much. Although I also don't claim to have Kriv pegged already, either.

Chris Booker, Carlos Almanzar...

MWM
03-22-2006, 05:38 PM
this has nothing to do with the trade itself, but the notion that if a better trade was out there then they would have taken it is somewhat faulty logic. Of course the people making the final decision will take what they think is the best offer. But it also means that the best trades are ALWAYS made because no one would purposely make a trade they thought was second best. The disagreement lies in what is the best.

It reminds me of an old economist joke. An economist and a friend are walking down the street and the friend sees a $20 bill on the ground. the economist just walks right past it. The friend asks why the economist didn't pick it up. the economist replies that it couldn't have really been there because if it was then someone would have picked it up already.

Johnny Footstool
03-22-2006, 05:47 PM
That's a good point, MWM. But I think Krivsky's interest in Van Buren and his inability to acquire him along with Arroyo indicates he sold Pena short. I'm sure Krivsky thinks he got the best deal possible. I simply don't.

Doc. Scott
03-22-2006, 05:49 PM
Knowing just what I know, I wouldn't have taken Arroyo and Van Buren for Pena over Arroyo and $1.5 million. But Arroyo and a decent pitching prospect would have been nice.

registerthis
03-22-2006, 06:04 PM
That's a good point, MWM. But I think Krivsky's interest in Van Buren and his inability to acquire him along with Arroyo indicates he sold Pena short. I'm sure Krivsky thinks he got the best deal possible. I simply don't.

I'm not making the same connection here. We don't know what Theo and the Gang were asking in addition with Pena in order to get van Buren or some other prospect. The assumption being made here is that Krivsky simply didn't pound his fists on the table loud enough and demand that Van Buren be added to the deal. I would certainly think that if Krivsky wanted van Buren, and could have had him if he had thrown in Dane Sardinha or some other chump change, he certainly would have done it. That he didn't tells me that either the Red Sox were asking for too much in return, or it came down to Van Buren or the $1.5 mil. The former is entirely possible, and the latter assigns a value to Van Buren that is ridiculously high.

Nugget
03-22-2006, 06:09 PM
I don't see what all the interest in Van Buren is. He is another young relief pitcher which is not yet ready for the major leagues. The REDS has a supply of those. Now if he was a starter prospect it would be different.

registerthis
03-22-2006, 06:13 PM
I don't see what all the interest in Van Buren is. He is another young relief pitcher which is not yet ready for the major leagues. The REDS has a supply of those. Now if he was a starter prospect it would be different.

At best he would have been a throw-in for the Pena deal. Even if Pena had netted the reds both Arroyo and Van Buren, it's hard to imagine people being that much more satisfied with this deal.

TeamBoone
03-22-2006, 11:25 PM
The whole point is that if Krivsky wanted Van Buren, he should have insisted that he be included in the deal. A good negotiator would have done so. But Krivsky caved.

Ummmm, unless you were there, how do you know that Krivsky did not insist that he be included?

Perhaps, just perhaps, they said "no" and rather than flush the entire deal down the toilet he accepted what they offered rather than lose Arroyo completely.

Topcat
03-23-2006, 12:55 AM
I guess that's where we differ. The way I see it, if you're dealing out of desperation, you always end up settling for less, and you never get the best deal.


So johnny ? if the red's are not in a desperate situation , please define what they are? If Bronson reels off even a 8-8 record before the trade deadline with a era of around 4.20. Think we can trade him for a higher value prospect or prospects than Willy Mo ?

MartyFan
03-23-2006, 03:10 AM
So johnny ? if the red's are not in a desperate situation , please define what they are? If Bronson reels off even a 8-8 record before the trade deadline with a era of around 4.20. Think we can trade him for a higher value prospect or prospects than Willy Mo ?

Regardless of the level of prospect we would be able to score the fact of the matter is that we need rms more than a free swinging, poor fielding, under developed, OF with loads of potential...Our OF got better by moving Pena. Our IF got better by putting Dunn back in the OF...not saying much but it is the truth.

I believe I saw a stat on here one time that if our pitching staff would perform just to their career averages that we would add another 20 wins.

SteelSD
03-23-2006, 03:15 AM
So johnny ? if the red's are not in a desperate situation , please define what they are? If Bronson reels off even a 8-8 record before the trade deadline with a era of around 4.20. Think we can trade him for a higher value prospect or prospects than Willy Mo ?

I'll never understand the above reasoning.

Arroyo's composite ERA over the previous two seasons is 4.29. Let's say he does that. It's not out of the question because that's who he's been over his past 384.3 IP. But then, everyone with access to so much as a baseball card knows that Arroyo has put up a near-4.20 ERA over his last 384.3 IP. And yet no one offered up more than Wily Mo Pena for him. Very reasonable 3-year contract. Everyone and their brother knew the Red Sox had a pitching surplus and that Arroyo was available. No one was willing to trump a one-up swap of Wily Mo Pena. No one.

If that's what Arroyo ends up being, why would the Reds- desperate for quality Starting Pitching as you say- trade him at the deadline? Answer= they wouldn't. Now, I might. But they won't.

Discounting the fact that the Reds wouldn't trade a reasonably priced slightly above average MLB starter, what in the world makes you think that Bronson Arroyo will suddenly be worth more then than now if he ends up being the pitcher any number of teams might think he is now anyway? Desperation? Oh wait. You just said the Reds were desperate. Desperate teams don't tend to be the predator. They're the prey.

Understand this- the only situation in which the Reds will be looking to "flip" Bronson Arroyo at the deadline is if Arroyo falls flat on his face. If that happens, there's no way the Reds will possibly get back more in return than they gave up- particularly considering that no one was willing to give up more than Pena for him in the first place.

And, certainly, if the Reds feel that it's probable that Arroyo can put up a better-than-average ERA then they shouldn't be the only team that thinks so. In that case, they should be able to flip him for more than Pena right now to another team that thinks he's capable of putting up an ERA around 4.20. But if they could, the Red Sox would have already done so.

See, teams desperate for pitching don't go out acquiring pitchers with three year contracts in the hope that they won't impact the team enough to be worth keeping around past the trade deadline.

So we all might as well sit back, grab a beer, and stop using the "they can flip him" line of thought because we're locked into Bronson Arroyo for the long haul. Unless he sucks of course. Then the Reds can flip him for less because they're still a team desperate for pitching. Diminishing returns, while interesting, isn't a whole lot of fun.

redsmetz
03-23-2006, 06:18 AM
I think SteelSD has it right. From my thinking, I don't think the Reds are looking at Arroyo as "short term" - that 3 year contract is sweet and he can be a integral part of the Reds rotation for at least two of those years. Let's wish him all the success in the world. Let's convince him to love Cincinnati almost as much as Beantown. I think we've vastly improved a rotation that had two decent slots. Now, if Milton's outing last night wasn't an aberation, we may have four good slots.

Now if someone can do a novena to St. Jude on Dave Williams, turning him into the second coming of Cy Young, we'll have something. At least until we get to the relievers. :D

REDREAD
03-23-2006, 07:00 AM
I don't think the Red Sox have any interest in Sardinha. I don't think anyone does. Sardinha clears waivers on a yearly basis, and no one ever claims him. He has no chance at all of being able to hit ML pitching. Surely, there's better AAA catchers on the waiver wire. There's always a Pat Borders type that is willing to stay in AAA if you pay him enough. I'd love to trade Sardinha for a kid that has a chance to be a decent ML reliever, but I don't think that's going to happen. If the Sox are able to send this kid to AAA, they have a lot of leverage. They don't have to trade him this year, so I expect they'll get something good for Van Buren (good, compared to Sardinha).

Johnny Footstool
03-23-2006, 09:23 AM
Desperate teams don't tend to be the predator. They're the prey.

Yep.

TRF
03-23-2006, 09:34 AM
I'll take Steel a step further. IMO the guys that can be flipped is WMP or Nixon. The Red Sox know it too. If they do well in a platoon role, they'll determine need and decid which is the better fit for their club. If that happens to be WMP, Nixon will be the "veteran bat" being shopped. The Reds made this trade to keep Arroyo. Our take is Arroyo is a good start.

But Arroyo alone, like WMP alone was not going to put this team in the playoffs. And since this wasn't a trade to do that, the Reds were not in a desperate situation. The Red Sox were. After losing Damon, and looking at their OF situation, I think they felt they needed another bat. Maybe not because of losing Damon, but because they kept Nixon. And since Manny be Manny, and you never know when he'll demand a trade to the Korean National team, they needed a young slugger. Especially one that gets Red Sox Nation talking. And they are talking. BTW His first HR as a Red Sox is against the Yankees. I'm not saying a legend is born, but that's a good start.

Three pitchers for Guillen at the deadline. I would expect the same for WMP, but of better quality than Valentine and Bruksh. (sp?)

Falls City Beer
03-23-2006, 09:34 AM
I'll never understand the above reasoning.

Arroyo's composite ERA over the previous two seasons is 4.29. Let's say he does that. It's not out of the question because that's who he's been over his past 384.3 IP. But then, everyone with access to so much as a baseball card knows that Arroyo has put up a near-4.20 ERA over his last 384.3 IP. And yet no one offered up more than Wily Mo Pena for him. Very reasonable 3-year contract. Everyone and their brother knew the Red Sox had a pitching surplus and that Arroyo was available. No one was willing to trump a one-up swap of Wily Mo Pena. No one.

If that's what Arroyo ends up being, why would the Reds- desperate for quality Starting Pitching as you say- trade him at the deadline? Answer= they wouldn't. Now, I might. But they won't.

Discounting the fact that the Reds wouldn't trade a reasonably priced slightly above average MLB starter, what in the world makes you think that Bronson Arroyo will suddenly be worth more then than now if he ends up being the pitcher any number of teams might think he is now anyway? Desperation? Oh wait. You just said the Reds were desperate. Desperate teams don't tend to be the predator. They're the prey.

Understand this- the only situation in which the Reds will be looking to "flip" Bronson Arroyo at the deadline is if Arroyo falls flat on his face. If that happens, there's no way the Reds will possibly get back more in return than they gave up- particularly considering that no one was willing to give up more than Pena for him in the first place.

And, certainly, if the Reds feel that it's probable that Arroyo can put up a better-than-average ERA then they shouldn't be the only team that thinks so. In that case, they should be able to flip him for more than Pena right now to another team that thinks he's capable of putting up an ERA around 4.20. But if they could, the Red Sox would have already done so.

See, teams desperate for pitching don't go out acquiring pitchers with three year contracts in the hope that they won't impact the team enough to be worth keeping around past the trade deadline.

So we all might as well sit back, grab a beer, and stop using the "they can flip him" line of thought because we're locked into Bronson Arroyo for the long haul. Unless he sucks of course. Then the Reds can flip him for less because they're still a team desperate for pitching. Diminishing returns, while interesting, isn't a whole lot of fun.


You know. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Arroyo pitches well, or pitches to the level posted above, AND the Reds as a team still suck. In which case, I honestly think Krivsky would trade Arroyo at the deadline. I don't think it's as simple as "good = keep him; bad = trade him."

lollipopcurve
03-23-2006, 09:58 AM
I think people need to get adjusted to the idea that the Reds are going for it, and the window is the next 3 years. Dunn is signed, Pena has been traded for an experienced starter, they're on the lookout for more pitching, and Castellini is riding herd.

Falls City Beer
03-23-2006, 10:04 AM
I think people need to get adjusted to the idea that the Reds are going for it, and the window is the next 3 years. Dunn is signed, Pena has been traded for an experienced starter, they're on the lookout for more pitching, and Castellini is riding herd.

I hope that's the plan. Long-term rebuildings are for jobbers.

TRF
03-23-2006, 10:19 AM
You know. It's not out of the realm of possibility that Arroyo pitches well, or pitches to the level posted above, AND the Reds as a team still suck. In which case, I honestly think Krivsky would trade Arroyo at the deadline. I don't think it's as simple as "good = keep him; bad = trade him."

It's the contract that says keep him.Everyone happy with the return on this trade fails to see what steel said about Arroyo. Nobody offered more than WMP for Arroyo. They keep saying it backwards, like Arroyo was all we could get for WMP. RCast is in his first 90 days as owner, and this team is not doing a 180 in 90 days. Now I believe that after a series of moves over the course of the next 6-8 months this team can compete in 2007. And with that reasoning there was no reason to ship WMP to Boston for Arroyo alone. He should have netted more than Guillen.

registerthis
03-23-2006, 10:29 AM
It's the contract that says keep him.Everyone happy with the return on this trade fails to see what steel said about Arroyo. Nobody offered more than WMP for Arroyo. They keep saying it backwards, like Arroyo was all we could get for WMP. RCast is in his first 90 days as owner, and this team is not doing a 180 in 90 days. Now I believe that after a series of moves over the course of the next 6-8 months this team can compete in 2007. And with that reasoning there was no reason to ship WMP to Boston for Arroyo alone. He should have netted more than Guillen.

That logic doesn't make sense to me. Of COURSE no one offered more than WMP for Arroyo, otherwise the Sox wouldn't have made the deal. It's also true that no one offered more than Arroyo for Pena, so we're right back to where we started. I just think arguing over the return on this trade is senseless--you can only examine it at face value. In other words, does having Arroyo in the rotation present the Reds with a better chance to win--now and in the future--than they would have with Pena in the lineup? I think the answer is 'yes', and while others can (and most certainly do) disagree with that statement, its pointless to argue the value of the return when no one here was privy to the discussions between the clubs.

Red Leader
03-23-2006, 10:36 AM
Of course all of this has to take into consideration what others teams want and what other teams had to give.

How many teams are looking for experienced right handed starting pitching, and are looking for a player with Arroyo's numbers, and not significantly better (ie, not an ace, or even a potential #2). After you subtract those teams, subtract those teams that have a right handed power bat to give. Now how many teams are remaining? Of those, how many of those players have a higher upside than Wily Mo, are contact neutral (or close) to Arroyo, and under the Red Sox control for the same time period as Arroyo? I'm guessing the answer is: not very many at all.

Of course, having said that, many people will say that's an argument for why the Reds had leverage, and should've gotten more.

I heard during the Reds game last night that the Pirates were very close to getting Matt Clement from Boston for Craig Wilson. If that deal happens, the Reds don't get Arroyo. So, by making this deal, not only did the Reds get the player they needed, but they also prevented a divison rival from improving.

TRF
03-23-2006, 10:37 AM
I think the answer is no, as WMP's replacement is Hatteberg, and his bat is just that bad.

BRM
03-23-2006, 10:43 AM
I think the answer is no, as WMP's replacement is Hatteberg, and his bat is just that bad.

Not in Jerry's world.

mound_patrol
03-23-2006, 11:21 AM
I don't see why there are so many people talking about Arroyo being flipped at the trading deadline. This move wasn't made for a future trade, it was made because Wayne Krivsky and the Reds see him playing a role in their future plans for success. This is simply just one of the first moves of many that will be made to improve this team.

nyjwagner
03-23-2006, 11:38 AM
I think what you guys might be missing ( though I admit I didnt read pages 2-4 of this thread) is that Arroyo is an innings eater, with little injury risk with a cheap contract signed for more then a year....You got to throw in the business end of it to balance the deal. Also, Bronson has been a winner, and aroudn winners for the last few years, thats an attitude that this clubhouse needs....These hitters need to know that they arent going to be losing games 12-10 all season, and Arroyo is the begining of that mindset....

Pena was just another bat that might become Manny Ramirez, but wasnt going to do anything for the club that Arroyo did. I think the important thing to note is we got Arroyo and not David Wells or Matt Clement....that is something Dan O never would have done.