PDA

View Full Version : Kearns and Lopez are traded



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Jpup
07-16-2006, 04:31 PM
Steve Phillips on BBTN just said this was the most 1 sided deal he has seen in a decade.

Not that I care what the retread GM says, but maybe some of you will.

he would know.

edabbs44
07-16-2006, 04:34 PM
How can you say it's awful?

How many times have you personally witnessed Thompson, Bray, Harris, and Majewski play baseball?

You don't posess enough personal information to make that sort of a judgement, nor does anyone else on this board (to say it's awful).
Sorry, just stating my opinion which I think I am able to do. I'm not really crying over losing Lopez (though I really wish BP was moved to SS b/c Clayton is awful) but the Kearns part really bothers me.

GAC
07-16-2006, 08:45 PM
He also turned Boston down when they wanted Kearns in the Arroyo deal. He made them "settle" for WMP. To me that shows he felt he could get more for Kearns.

Or maybe he wanted to "dump" Pena more, while Boston maybe saw the "next" Manny? ;)

reds44
07-17-2006, 03:35 AM
Nobody expected this team to do anything this year. This team is extremly young. We are getting major contributions from Encarnacion (23), Phillips (25), Dunn (26), Denorfia (26), Ramirez (23), and Coffey (25). Majewski and Bray are 26 and 23 respectfully, and they are part of the future as well as this year. Arroyo, Phillips, Ross, and Hateberg weren't on our roster until Krivsky took over at the beginning of srping training, with Phillips being acquire in April. Considering what Krivsky has done with barely any offseason, I can't wait to see what he does with an entire offseason.

As for the trade, I think Krivsky is building his offense around Dunn and Encarnacion which made Kearns expandable. Lopez was a guy who's value is plumbiting and really didn't fit Krivsky's system. We can sit here all day and argue if he got enough for Kearns and Lopez, but it would get us nowhere. He is taking the team in a different direction then it has been. No more 1-8 where most of the guys are power hitters. He wants speed/OBP at the top, power in the middle, and defense at the bottom. Denorfia brings the speed and OBP at the top, not to mention his amazing range in the outfield, and a guy like Clayton brings defense to the bottom of the order. Freel will also see alot of time at the top of the order.

All I know is the guy has taken a team predicted to finish last in the central that had an OD lineup of this:

Tony Womack 2B
Felipe Lopez SS
Ken Griffey Jr. CF
Adam Dunn LF
Edwin Encarnacion 3B
Scott Hatteberg 1B
Austin Kearns RF
Javier Valentin C
Aaron Harang P

and on the fly turned it into this:
Denorfia-RF
Dunn-LF
Griffey-CF
Encarnacion-3B
Hatteberg-1B
Phillips-2B
Ross (when healthy)-C
Clayton-SS

a starting rotation like this when he took over in spring training:
Harang
Milton
Claussen
Williams
Germano????

and turned it into:
Arroyo
Harang
Ramirez
Milton
Claussen/Mays (a trade is coming)

and a bullpen that looked like this:
Mike Burns
Matt Belisle
Todd Coffey
Rick White
Chris Hammond
Kent Mercker

and turned it into:
Jason Standridge (would be Belisle when he is healthy)
Kent Mercker
David Weathers
Todd Coffey
Bill Bray
Gary Majewski
Eddie Guardado

He acquired Arroyo for Pena (who many people on this board, said we got the worse end of the deal of), Phillips and Ross for PTBNL, signed Hatteberg during ST, and traded Travis Chick for a proven closer.

He has re-made this team on the fly, and has us 5 games over .500 and 2.5 games up in the Wild Card in late July. I am going to trust the guy. Krivsky has taken alot of crap over the past few days, and I suggest we give him some time before you say how badly we got robbed in the trade.

He knows what he is doing.

edabbs44
07-17-2006, 06:41 AM
Here is an interesting Reds analysis from RotoWorld. Don't worry, it's more relevant to the real world than the fantasy world. :)

Seeing Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez and Ryan Wagner traded from Cincinnati to Washington for Gary Majewski, Bill Bray, Royce Clayton, Brendan Harris and Daryl Thompson shocked me more than any trade in years. Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano was terrible, but since there were rumors about it in advance, I was prepared. I don’t think I’ve been that baffled by a move since the A’s sent Jeremy Giambi to the Phillies for John Mabry in 2002. Oakland’s motivation in that one only became clear later on. There was also Travis Hafner and Ryan Drese from Texas to Cleveland for Einar Diaz and Aaron Myette that year. I thought it was some newspaper columnist’s dream scenario when it was first printed, but it in fact became a done deal later that day. Still, Hafner was supposed to be a fairly average DH, not the AL’s best hitter, and the Rangers weren’t lacking for those. It is easy to see what Reds GM Wayne Krivsky is thinking here. It was a terrible trade anyway, but at least the man does seem to have a plan.

For a trade of such magnitude, the fantasy impact of the eight-player deal isn’t that big. What value Kearns and Lopez lose comes from the ballpark switch, but while RFK is a true pitcher’s park, Great American’s reputation as a haven for hitters is overblown. Kearns and Lopez are going to hit in premium spots in an improved Washington lineup, so they’re not hurt badly. The two relievers retain little value for the short-term. Majewski’s long-term stock goes up, since he could be a candidate to close next year. Still, Eddie Guardado is the man in Cincinnati right now and Todd Coffey remains the better bet for 2007. Clayton will see at least a little less playing time in Cincinnati than he did in Washington, but he had little value anyway. Wagner and Harris should be non-factors for the rest of 2006. Wagner, though, was a nice pickup for a throw-in. Thompson is a right-hander with some upside, but he’s already dealt with shoulder problems and is a few years away even if he doesn’t have more issues.

National League notes

Cincinnati - The trade just doesn’t look any better now than it did Thursday, even if the Reds did complete a four-game sweep of the Rockies on Sunday. It’d be one thing if the Reds received a pair of shut-down relievers. Gary Majewski and Bill Bray don’t fit that description, though. 2005 will likely go down as the best season of Majewski’s career. He throws hard, but he doesn’t get many strikeouts and the Reds’ still shaky defense won’t help him. Bray is likely to be the better of the two relievers by mid-2007. He should be a very good left-handed setup man and maybe even a closer in his prime, but he’s not there right now. Those two arms just aren’t going to make enough of a difference this year, and while they should help in 2007 and beyond, the Reds would have been better off paying the price to keep Kearns and Lopez. If they were that dissatisfied with Lopez at shortstop, they could have had him switch spots with Brandon Phillips. Phillips has plenty of range and might make the move next year anyway. … Edwin Encarnacion has been swinging well since coming off the disabled list, but Reds manager Jerry Narron continues to give Rich Aurilia a lot of time at third base. While it’s mostly about defense, it’s clear Narron has overrated Aurilia as a hitter from the way he keeps batting him cleanup against right-handers. Encarnacion has close to 200 points of OPS on Aurilia versus right-handers, and while he has been error-prone at third base, he does cover more ground than Aurilia. Encarnacion should eventually resume playing regularly, but it might be a few more weeks.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 09:25 AM
Encarnacion should eventually resume playing regularly, but it might be a few more weeks.

not to hijack this thread, but :angry: .

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 09:30 AM
It's interesting that many Reds fans who support the trade claim Lopez and Kearns were overvalued, yet pretty much everyone who isn't close to the Reds thinks this was a terrible deal.

TRF
07-17-2006, 10:28 AM
I have taken in all the statistical analysis from guys like Steel, the statistical and subjective analysis of woy, and the purely subjective from Team Clark.

I hate this trade.

But my reasons for hating it are because I see a trend forming with Krivsky. He's like a 1st year fantasy baseball GM. He's made an astounding number of transactions, some that made seemingly no sense. Cody Ross? Yan? Mays? If the market for Guardado was Travis Chick, then Majewski could have been gotten for a Tyler Pelland. If you trade the prosuction of an Austin Kearns, I believe the Angels were looking for a bat, and Santana has been rumored to be available, you better get a good starting pitcher. And if Washington flips Kearns for him, as rumors hint that is possible, I'll just scream.

TC states FeLo could not have handled a transition to 2B. I think with Castro there to mentor it's possible he could have handled that transition, and then we have a plus defender at SS and at least league average at 2B. But TC stated that after Castro arrived FeLo started to improve his footwork. Had he the rest of the season to work with him, perhaps Lopez becomes an average to good defender at SS.

So the return is really two relievers and three throw-ins, unless Thompson is better than what the Reds already have at Dayton. And after seeing report after report of the Dayton rotation dominating the Midwest League, I kinda doubt he is.

All of this brings me to the conclusion that the Reds really wanted to seperate Kearns and Dunn, and Dunn's offense was valued higher than Kearns overall game. If the Reds see Phillips as the real future at SS, who is the future 2B? I don't see him in the system.

Is Denorfia the real deal? Is he Brady Clark part deux? maybe. If he isn't are we really counting on Jay Bruce to be in a Reds uni before 2009? The farm system has placed a premium on aquiring pitching talent because the offense at the major league level was so young. DanO and Krivsky both did this. But now krivsky has traded away two starters with no sure replacements in the minors. Deno isn't a can't miss guy. He's a Brady Clark guy. And remember it took Clark a long time to become a successful major leaguer. But he's got wheels, and good instincts in the field, so he doesn't hurt the Reds there. The question is can he hit ML pitching. we'll see.

Middle infield is a worry. The reds replaced a good hitting/weak fielding SS with an aging poor hitting/weak fielding SS. Why anyone thinks this was a good idea is beyond me. Harris projects as a utility guy, kind of a sub-Freel if you will. But Freel brings an offensive side to his game that Harris just doesn't possess: plate discipline and speed. If Deno is the starting RF, then Freel needs to be the starting 2B with Phillips moving to SS. Since that is apparently not going to happen before next year, the offense takes a BIG hit and the defens improve NOT at all.

How many deals are enough for one season? How many are too much? At what point does it affect the clubhouse, seeing guys come and go? Krivsky is very similar to Bowden, but where Bowden's weakness was "5 tool" OF's, Krivsky's appears to be middle relief pitchers.

Krivsky struck gold with Phillips and Arroyo. Silver with David Ross, and manure with just about everything else. I'm still waiting for someone to explain Cody Ross to me.

M2
07-17-2006, 10:28 AM
It's interesting that many Reds fans who support the trade claim Lopez and Kearns were overvalued, yet pretty much everyone who isn't close to the Reds thinks this was a terrible deal.

I went to my cousin's wedding this weekend and had about a dozen relatives ask just what in the hell the Reds were thinking. People in the office, almost all of whom are Red Sox fans, have come up to me and asked the same question. I work with a Dodgers fan who said he was pleased with the deal as he figures it makes the Wild Card that much easier to win. I know a British guy who likes the Astros who sent me an e-mail razzing the Reds and expressing confidence they'd just taken themselves out of the playoff hunt. What I've yet to hear is one person who doesn't have a rooting interest in the Reds think this was anything but a pure heist perpetrated by Bowden upon his old club.

westofyou
07-17-2006, 10:34 AM
It's interesting that many Reds fans who support the trade claim Lopez and Kearns were overvalued, yet pretty much everyone who isn't close to the Reds thinks this was a terrible deal.
True, but then again every Reds fan wants to hold the hitting so close their vest that they seem to never want to try and see what will happen if you try another direction that includes more baseball players and less hitters.


But my reasons for hating it are because I see a trend forming with Krivsky. He's like a 1st year fantasy baseball GM. He's made an astounding number of transactions, some that made seemingly no sense.

Bill DeWitt... here's a piece on DeWitts first year with the Reds, pretty interesting stuff (PDF) (http://www.baseballminutia.com/images/a.pdf)


I know a British guy who likes the Astros who sent me an e-mail razzing the Reds and expressing confidence they'd just taken themselves out of the playoff hunt.
Was that on Thursday? ;)

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 10:37 AM
What I've yet to hear is one person who doesn't have a rooting interest in the Reds think this was anything but a pure heist perpetrated by Bowden upon his old club.

Yet my coworker in Chicago, who is a true baseball fan, not a fashinable Cubs fan thinks this was a move in the right direction for the team and doesn't think it's the end of the Reds as we know them as some here claim.

That just goes to show you the value of all this antidoctal evidence about what people's cousins and bar keepers think about the trade ;)

registerthis
07-17-2006, 10:39 AM
Yet my coworker in Chicago, who is a true baseball fan, not a fashinable Cubs fan thinks this was a move in the right direction for the team and doesn't think it's the end of the Reds as we know them as some here claim.

I don't think it's the end of the Reds as we know them.

I just think it was a really, really really bad trade.

NJReds
07-17-2006, 10:42 AM
What I've yet to hear is one person who doesn't have a rooting interest in the Reds think this was anything but a pure heist perpetrated by Bowden upon his old club.

Buster Olney.

smith288
07-17-2006, 10:46 AM
The trade nearly ruined my vacation. Its not that we lost two young talented starters...its what we got back, which would have been great for a Larue type of player, no where NEAR the return for a Lopez/Kearns/Wagner package.

Thats my complaint. And we cant project Bray or Thompson either so its hardly relevent to now.

It was just a very odd move with some potential but not worth the currency given.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 10:48 AM
The trade nearly ruined my vacation. Its not that we lost two young talented starters...its what we got back, which would have been great for a Larue type of player, no where NEAR the return for a Lopez/Kearns/Wagner package.

Thats my complaint. And we cant project Bray or Thompson either so its hardly relevent to now.

It was just a very odd move with some potential but not worth the currency given.

We traded 10 American dollars for 5 Canadian ones in the hope that the exchange rate eventually works in our favor.

smith288
07-17-2006, 10:50 AM
We traded 10 American dollars for 5 Canadian ones in the hope that the exchange rate eventually works in our favor.
More like 10 pesos with the hope it works out in 1 year... *sob*

M2
07-17-2006, 10:59 AM
Buster Olney.

I should pay more attention to Olney. He's a can't-miss confirmer of horrible ideas.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 11:03 AM
I should pay more attention to Olney. He's a can't-miss confirmer of horrible ideas.

I agree. He's a loud self-promoter who's trying to earn a reputation as an out-of-the-box thinker by spouting the most idiotic things possible.

NJReds
07-17-2006, 11:10 AM
I agree. He's a loud self-promoter who's trying to earn a reputation as an out-of-the-box thinker by spouting the most idiotic things possible.

Well on one side people are killing Phillips for his comment "worst trade he's ever seen" (although yesterday he amended that to "a steep price to pay")

Then Olney was asked what he thought of the deal and was told Phillips initial comment. He didn't agree with that comment that it was the "worst ever" and while it seemed like a steep price, it will help the Reds win now.

Seems to me that you're either in the Phillips camp (bad deal) or the Olney camp (not so bad) or the completely optimistic (great deal for the Reds).

I would think that the Reds could've gotten more for Kearns/Lopez, but apparently that's not the case. If so, the best possible deal in this situation would've been for WK to hang up the phone on Bowden and keep looking.

Patrick Bateman
07-17-2006, 11:11 AM
We traded 10 American dollars for 5 Canadian ones in the hope that the exchange rate eventually works in our favor.

That's a good move. You'll see....

westofyou
07-17-2006, 11:14 AM
Well on one side people are killing Phillips for his comment "worst trade he's ever seen" (although yesterday he amended that to "a steep price to pay")

Then Olney was asked what he thought of the deal and was told Phillips initial comment. He didn't agree with that comment that it was the "worst ever" and while it seemed like a steep price, it will help the Reds win now.

Seems to me that you're either in the Phillips camp (bad deal) or the Olney camp (not so bad) or the completely optimistic (great deal for the Reds).

I would think that the Reds could've gotten more for Kearns/Lopez, but apparently that's not the case. If so, the best possible deal in this situation would've been for WK to hang up the phone on Bowden and keep looking.


Of Course Steve Phillips also said this:

“Value is determined by each organization in the time and space that they find themselves,”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/sports/baseball/16score.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

NJReds
07-17-2006, 11:16 AM
Of Course Steve Phillips also said this:

“Value is determined by each organization in the time and space that they find themselves,”


Far out, man. :cool:

I guess he's been hanging out with Bill Walton.

westofyou
07-17-2006, 11:20 AM
Far out, man. :cool:

I guess he's been hanging out with Bill Walton.

Here's my Bill Walton Story... Grateful Dead Show 1984 Berkeley Greek Theater, During the break Walton and Bob Weir could be seen playing a game of HORSE backstage.

Walton won.

Puffy
07-17-2006, 11:39 AM
That's a good move. You'll see....

So, I'm going to Canada next month - and now I'm confused. Do I need 10 american dollars or 5 canadian dollars?

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-17-2006, 11:57 AM
I think we have overvalued both Kearns and Lopez. FeLo is the worst defensive SS in baseball and was only an All Star due to the ridiculous "every team must be represented rule."

Kearns has talent but when is it going to materialize? This guy is Glenn Braggs minus the breaking-the-bat-over-the-knee passion for the game. What we see now is quite possibly what we're going to see in 3 years.

The price for middle relievers (any pitching) is at a premium and we just acquired some. It certainly helps in the WC race.

Incidently, Kearns and FeLo were a combined 1 for 11 yesterday against Pirates pitching.

Patrick Bateman
07-17-2006, 12:03 PM
I think we have overvalued both Kearns and Lopez. FeLo is the worst defensive SS in baseball and was only an All Star due to the ridiculous "every team must be represented rule."

Kearns has talent but when is it going to materialize? This guy is Glenn Braggs minus the breaking-the-bat-over-the-knee passion for the game. What we see now is quite possibly what we're going to see in 3 years.

The price for middle relievers (any pitching) is at a premium and we just acquired some. It certainly helps in the WC race.

Incidently, Kearns and FeLo were a combined 1 for 11 yesterday against Pirates pitching.

Lopez was an all-star last season because he was one of the top SS is the NL last season. He more than deserved it IMO.

Braggs was nothing more than a 4th OF'der. He's incomparable to Kearns.

Patrick Bateman
07-17-2006, 12:04 PM
So, I'm going to Canada next month - and now I'm confused. Do I need 10 american dollars or 5 canadian dollars?

5 Canadian dollars should cover you.

Puffy
07-17-2006, 12:07 PM
5 Canadian dollars should cover you.

Good - then when I hand that to the strippers it won't seem like as much money!

Puffy
07-17-2006, 12:09 PM
I think we have overvalued both Kearns and Lopez. FeLo is the worst defensive SS in baseball and was only an All Star due to the ridiculous "every team must be represented rule."

Kearns has talent but when is it going to materialize? This guy is Glenn Braggs minus the breaking-the-bat-over-the-knee passion for the game. What we see now is quite possibly what we're going to see in 3 years.

The price for middle relievers (any pitching) is at a premium and we just acquired some. It certainly helps in the WC race.

Incidently, Kearns and FeLo were a combined 1 for 11 yesterday against Pirates pitching.

Lopez lead NL SS's in HRs and RBI and was second in BA when elected to the game. All that while not playing much the first three weeks of the season because of Aurilia. He deserved it.

And Majewski has given up 3 runs in two appearances. That is just as valid as you pointing out that Kearns and Lopez were 1-11 yesterday.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 12:12 PM
I think we have overvalued both Kearns and Lopez. FeLo is the worst defensive SS in baseball and was only an All Star due to the ridiculous "every team must be represented rule."

Kearns has talent but when is it going to materialize? This guy is Glenn Braggs minus the breaking-the-bat-over-the-knee passion for the game. What we see now is quite possibly what we're going to see in 3 years.

The price for middle relievers (any pitching) is at a premium and we just acquired some. It certainly helps in the WC race.

Incidently, Kearns and FeLo were a combined 1 for 11 yesterday against Pirates pitching.

As I've said before, Kearns and Lopez were both in the top 10 in OPS at their respective positions at the time of the trade. They're also 26 years old. We're not overvaluing them.

And your dismissal of Lopez's All-Star selection is rationalization at its worst.

pedro
07-17-2006, 12:13 PM
Lopez lead NL SS's in HRs and RBI and was second in BA when elected to the game. All that while not playing much the first three weeks of the season because of Aurilia. He deserved it.



yeah, but power numbers have fallen back to career norms this year and he really has no business playing SS. IMO he's going to make way too much money next year for a guy who may really never cut it as a MI and may not hit well enough to play 3B. I really like Lopez but in the end it's obvious to me that he was the guy to trade. Kearns I feel had more long term value but the Reds but corner OF's are fairly easy to replace and the Reds seem to feel the could slot Deno in there.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:17 PM
yeah, but power numbers have fallen back to career norms this year and he really has no business playing SS. IMO he's going to make way too much money next year for a guy who may really never cut it as a MI and may not hit well enough to play 3B. I really like Lopez but in the end it's obvious to me that he was the guy to trade.I really have/had no issue with dealing Lopez. It is replacing him with Clayton(when he is worst of all potential options) that really chaps my hoofed mammal of the genus Equus.

Puffy
07-17-2006, 12:20 PM
yeah, but power numbers have fallen back to career norms this year and he really has no business playing SS. IMO he's going to make way too much money next year for a guy who may really never cut it as a MI and may not hit well enough to play 3B. I really like Lopez but in the end it's obvious to me that he was the guy to trade. Kearns I feel had more long term value but the Reds but corner OF's are fairly easy to replace and the Reds seem to feel the could slot Deno in there.

Why are you quoting me? Reds/Flyers fan stated that Lopez was only elected to the all-star team because of the one person per team. I was merely pointing out that wasn't correct. Not debating the merits of the trade or why I like Lopez.

pedro
07-17-2006, 12:24 PM
Why are you quoting me? Reds/Flyers fan stated that Lopez was only elected to the all-star team because of the one person per team. I was merely pointing out that wasn't correct. Not debating the merits of the trade or why I like Lopez.

Because you're my hero Puffy. Don't make me start crying. ;)

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:26 PM
In replacing Lopez the Reds could have done better with

Castro everyday
Olmedo/Castro platon
Olmedo/RA platoon
RA everyday (reds don't have a GB staff, especially starters)
Phillips everyday

instead the option they chose (Clayton) is worse than any of the above from an offense/defense standpoint. Castro is better defensively as a SS (FRAA 0 to -6 for Clayton.) and is a basically a push offensively.

pedro
07-17-2006, 12:31 PM
In replacing Lopez the Reds could have done better with

Castro everyday
Olmedo/Castro platon
Olmedo/RA platoon
RA everyday (reds don't have a GB staff, especially starters)
Phillips everyday

instead the option they chose (Clayton) is worse than any of the above from an offense/defense standpoint. Castro is better defensively as a SS (FRAA 0 to -6 for Clayton.) and is a basically a push offensively.


Clayton is not good offensively but IMO he's much better than Castro.

Castro's lifetime OPB is .270

Puffy
07-17-2006, 12:36 PM
I'd rather they play Clayton everyday rather than Castro.

It hurt me even to type those two names with the word everyday involved in the post.

Ugh.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:42 PM
Clayton is not good offensively but IMO he's much better than Castro.

Castro's lifetime OPB is .270in the last few years it is basically a push.

Clayton .671 and .682
Castro .665 and .610

those two are the options I like the least, they are both black holes offensively and defensive metrics(and most anecdotal) suggest that AT BEST Castro is average and Clayton slightly below.

The Reds have seemingly painted themselves into a corner especially since Freel is a average(FRAA = 0) player at 2nd and PECOTA suggests Phillips would likely be no worse than average at SS. Of course, this entire episode has let me to believe that objective analysis was not involved in the decision making process.

REDREAD
07-17-2006, 12:45 PM
In a radio interview, yesterday, Phillips tried to goad Yanks GM Brian Cashman into slamming the trade, too. Cash would have none of it only saying that on the surface the price seemed steep (giving up two everyday players) but that the Reds also got two very good young arms.

I think that's because Cashman is a very diplomatic person. Even if Cashman thought the Reds got totally robbed, it's not a good idea for him to say that on radio. (Not a good idea to say another GM did something foolish on national radio).

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:47 PM
I think that's because Cashman is a very diplomatic person. Even if Cashman thought the Reds got totally robbed, it's not a good idea for him to say that on radio. (Not a good idea to say another GM did something foolish on national radio).no other GM is going to come out and say something like that "on the record". What I can bet is that there are a lot of other GMs who would have liked to been on the Bowden end of a deal like that.

pedro
07-17-2006, 12:51 PM
in the last few years it is basically a push.

Clayton .671 and .682
Castro .665 and .610

those two are the options I like the least, they are both black holes offensively and defensive metrics(and most anecdotal) suggest that AT BEST Castro is average and Clayton slightly below.

The Reds have seemingly painted themselves into a corner especially since Freel is a average(FRAA = 0) player at 2nd and PECOTA suggests Phillips would likely be no worse than average at SS. Of course, this entire episode has let me to believe that objective analysis was not involved in the decision making process.

you really need to look at those numbers more closely. It's not the push you think it is. (btw- .610 is Castro's lifetime OPS not this years.)

Catrso has never had an OBP over .300 in any season. Clayton's OBP, while not good, still has been consistently around .315, which is his career average.

M2
07-17-2006, 01:13 PM
you really need to look at those numbers more closely. It's not the push you think it is. (btw- .610 is Castro's lifetime OPS not this years.)

Catrso has never had an OBP over .300 in any season. Clayton's OBP, while not good, still has been consistently around .315, which is his career average.

I agree with you vis-a-vis Clayton and Castro, but man do I hate that we've been reduced to splitting that hair.

paulrichjr
07-17-2006, 01:16 PM
I have said this before and I will say it again. The only GM that we could have "held up" on this deal was Bowden. The guy loves ex-Reds and he would have paid more to have gotten them. I can't believe that he wouldn't have made the same deal without Lopez or even the same deal without Wagner. You cannot tell me that Bowden would have said no to Kearns and Lopez. WayneK has made amazing deals so far and I feel got the better of all of them (except this one). This deal was an act of desperation which seems goofy when you realize that this team has so many holes that just getting to the playoffs means an early exit. I could care less about watching the Reds get swept by the Mets.

This deal makes me wonder if Cast is the next George. Maybe he is putting pressure on WayneK to win now at all costs. Now I am praying for a quick August 1st so that Homer and Votto aren't traded for a middle reliever.

Kc61
07-17-2006, 02:29 PM
To me, there are two questions about this trade:

1. Is Majewski any good?

2. Who will be the new middle infielder to replace Lopez long term?

I'm fine with getting a set-up guy if it's the right set-up guy. If Majewski isn't a consistent 8th inning man, that's a big disappointment.

I'm also fine with trading a corner outfielder like Kearns. Between Deno and Freel (and maybe a Sanders type) that slot will be ok somehow. But good middle infielders who can hit are not easy to find. If not Lopez, who?

smith288
07-17-2006, 03:38 PM
To me, there are two questions about this trade:

1. Is Majewski any good?

2. Who will be the new middle infielder to replace Lopez long term?

I'm fine with getting a set-up guy if it's the right set-up guy. If Majewski isn't a consistent 8th inning man, that's a big disappointment.

I'm also fine with trading a corner outfielder like Kearns. Between Deno and Freel (and maybe a Sanders type) that slot will be ok somehow. But good middle infielders who can hit are not easy to find. If not Lopez, who?
1 - He's ok

2 - Phillips

Kc61
07-17-2006, 05:21 PM
1 - He's ok

2 - Phillips

If Phillips is at short, who plays second?

ochre
07-17-2006, 05:22 PM
If Phillips is at short, who plays second?
the guy replacing Phillips :)

You asked who was replacing Lopez...

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 06:27 PM
I think what you meant to say is while it doesn't look like an equitable trade at the outset, to truly call it awful will require some additional time and witness to how these players progress?

There's certainly a large enough sample at this time for some to have the "awful" opinion. What might lessen that label to a degree is what we see happen over the next few weeks in this seller's market. Perhaps the Reds have set forth a short-term standard that other sellers will now expect potential buyers to live by.


Yes, you might have enough information to form an opinion to say you don't like the trade, or you think that it doesn't favor the REDS in the short term or even the long term, but by no means does anyone here have enough information to say the trade is "awful".

I thought I was clear, but I'll respond to your post to be more clear.

The most amazing part to me about some of the opinions are that many think that it's a bad trade because Kearns and Lopez are better than "two middle relievers". We got five players, for one, but most importantly, you "never" want the players that are better right now. If you do, then you bought high which means you overpaid, and you've lessened the overall quality of the organization.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 06:33 PM
Oh, by the way....we've won four in a row.

dsmith421
07-17-2006, 06:34 PM
Oh, by the way....we've won four in a row.

Proves absolutely nothing.

Caveat Emperor
07-17-2006, 06:36 PM
The most amazing part to me about some of the opinions are that many think that it's a bad trade because Kearns and Lopez are better than "two middle relievers". We got five players, for one, but most importantly, you "never" want the players that are better right now. If you do, then you bought high which means you overpaid, and you've lessened the overall quality of the organization.

That's because the two middle relievers were clearly the centerpiece of this deal. Everything else is, for the most part, crap. Clayton is a below-average, barely above replacement-level shortstop that provides only marginally better defense than Lopez (as evidenced by his only slight-less below average rating than Lopez). If there's a merciful creator up above, he'll be gone after this season.

Brendan Harris is a guy who, if the sun, moon, and stars align, might have a chance to become the next Adam Kennedy at the big league level. You'll pardon me if I don't really start a list of Brendan Harris facts.

The Thompson kid, as M2 (I believe) so eloquently put it, is a scratch-off lottery ticket. He's had shoulder problems already, and he's only an A level prospect. Maybe he turns out to be something, maybe he doesn't -- but right now he's at least 4th on even the A-level depth chart behind Ward, Wood and Cueto in terms of value in the Reds organization.

As for buying low, selling high -- yeah, everyone around here wants that. They sold low on the 28th ranked OPS man and a former All Star if all they got is the mess that came back to Cincinnati. The fact that almost every baseball writer with a brain thinks so, as well as several people around here who I tend to think have the baseball smarts to be involved in a front office somewhere, might be a hint to that.

VR
07-17-2006, 06:40 PM
If Phillips is at short, who plays second?

Freel or Aurilia.

I really hope that happens quickly.

M2
07-17-2006, 06:40 PM
most importantly, you "never" want the players that are better right now. If you do, then you bought high which means you overpaid, and you've lessened the overall quality of the organization.

1) You most certainly do want the players who are better right now if you're making a deal with an eye toward making the playoffs this season.

2) Bird in hand tends to come out the winner in the vast majority of trades.

3) By defition, if you've just acquired better "right now" players than what you dealt away then you've increased the overal quality of your organization at the present moment.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 06:52 PM
Proves absolutely nothing.

True. Tried to get in an easy one.

Benihana
07-17-2006, 06:53 PM
I went to my cousin's wedding this weekend and had about a dozen relatives ask just what in the hell the Reds were thinking. People in the office, almost all of whom are Red Sox fans, have come up to me and asked the same question. I work with a Dodgers fan who said he was pleased with the deal as he figures it makes the Wild Card that much easier to win. I know a British guy who likes the Astros who sent me an e-mail razzing the Reds and expressing confidence they'd just taken themselves out of the playoff hunt. What I've yet to hear is one person who doesn't have a rooting interest in the Reds think this was anything but a pure heist perpetrated by Bowden upon his old club.

and how many of these "non-Reds fans" could tell you exactly who Chris Denorfia was five days ago? I don't put much stock into what other teams' casual fans think. C'mon M2, I can certainly understand you (as an educated Reds fan) not liking the trade, but with this logic?? You're better than that.

dsmith421
07-17-2006, 07:09 PM
and how many of these "non-Reds fans" could tell you exactly who Chris Denorfia was five days ago? I don't put much stock into what other teams' casual fans think. C'mon M2, I can certainly understand you (as an educated Reds fan) not liking the trade, but with this logic?? You're better than that.

Fine, try Baseball Think Factory's thread on the deal. Extremely intelligent fans of nearly every franchise in baseball panned the deal, most of whom I suspect are not only aware of Chris Denorfia, but the majority of the notable prospects in the Major Leagues. Most of the responses went something like "Oh, crap, we should have gotten in on that and offered <Mediocre MR 1>, <Mediocre MR 2>, <Completely useless old infielder>, and <Random garbage prospects>"

I still have yet to see anyone who is not a Reds fan or local journalist talk about this trade without either a) stating the Reds got jobbed, or b) expressing serious reservations.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 07:18 PM
Fine, try Baseball Think Factory's thread on the deal. Extremely intelligent fans of nearly every franchise in baseball panned the deal, most of whom I suspect are not only aware of Chris Denorfia, but the majority of the notable prospects in the Major Leagues. Most of the responses went something like "Oh, crap, we should have gotten in on that and offered <Mediocre MR 1>, <Mediocre MR 2>, <Completely useless old infielder>, and <Random garbage prospects>"

I still have yet to see anyone who is not a Reds fan or local journalist talk about this trade without either a) stating the Reds got jobbed, or b) expressing serious reservations.

I have no way to organize these opinions in anything but an anecdotal manner, but this is for the most part the case I've seen as well.

A whole bunch of smart people have been wrong before, but I wouldn't go around betting on one man being more clever than an army of good minds. It just doesn't happen that often.

(Unless you're talking about me.)

M2
07-17-2006, 07:59 PM
and how many of these "non-Reds fans" could tell you exactly who Chris Denorfia was five days ago? I don't put much stock into what other teams' casual fans think. C'mon M2, I can certainly understand you (as an educated Reds fan) not liking the trade, but with this logic?? You're better than that.

Some of the fans I've talked to I'd hardly describe as casual. Most of the Phillies fans I've heard from were of the casual variety, though - unlike Reds fans - they've seen a lot of Majewski.

While a decent number of the folks I've talked to would absolutely know who Denorfia is, I sincerely doubt they'd think he was a meaningful part of the equation. Yes, Denorfia makes it possible to trade Kearns and hopefully not take a big hit in the OF, but that still isn't a justification for underselling Kearns.

To me the logic seems pretty clear, the overwhelming majority of the non-Reds fan baseball world thinks Krivsky just laid an egg - numbers crunchers, seamheads, writers, talking heads, casual fans, rabid fans. I don't think you have to be some kind of tweaked up Reds fan to recognize the huge price the Reds just paid for middle relief. It could work out if Krivksy's performed what amounts to a perfect diagnosis on his team's needs, the relative strength of the league in the second half and the two arms he acquired, but let's not pretend this wasn't a renegade move.

Heck, probably the coolest thing about the trade if you're of a mind to defend it is how renegade a move it is.

ochre
07-17-2006, 08:02 PM
Heck, probably the coolest thing about the trade if you're of a mind to defend it is how renegade a move it is.
I like it, to some degree, because it jacks the price for middling relievers up a bit before the deadline. If things go south and the Reds become sellers...

RFS62
07-17-2006, 08:08 PM
Heck, probably the coolest thing about the trade if you're of a mind to defend it is how renegade a move it is.



Exactly right. I don't get how everyone seems to think that Krivsky just fell off a turnip truck and got fleeced unknowingly.

I think he knew it was lopsided and did it anyway to stay afloat this year.

I think it's a big picture move, with broader implications than the market value of the trading chips involved.

And I don't think we're done by a long shot.

I think it's a "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" kind of move for THIS YEAR. And I think the pieces we picked up keep us in contention a while longer, whereas no deal assured that we sink.

Yeah, we overpaid. It's a bigger picture than that. The marketing momentum of putting a contender out there with an owner with an image of actually giving a damn about the team and the fans hasn't been seen around here in a long, long time.

A renegade move is EXACTLY what it is, and I like it for that very reason. The loss of market value of the chips involved wouldn't be as great as the loss of falling out of contention YET AGAIN after all the marketing and public relations victories this new administration has achieved IN THE REDS COMMUNITY.

Screw playing it safe as we sink to the cellar yet again. I've seen enough of that in the last few years to last a lifetime.

Yeah, we could have done better. But we've stayed afloat and we're still in contention. What the hell more can we ask?

edabbs44
07-17-2006, 08:24 PM
I like it, to some degree, because it jacks the price for middling relievers up a bit before the deadline. If things go south and the Reds become sellers...
Hell, sell Maj no matter what happens. Keep Bray...lefties are a lot harder to obtain.

GAC
07-17-2006, 08:25 PM
Exactly right. I don't get how everyone seems to think that Krivsky just fell off a turnip truck and got fleeced unknowingly.

I think he knew it was lopsided and did it anyway to stay afloat this year.

I think it's a big picture move, with broader implications than the market value of the trading chips involved.

And I don't think we're done by a long shot.

I think it's a "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" kind of move for THIS YEAR. And I think the pieces we picked up keep us in contention a while longer, whereas no deal assured that we sink.

Yeah, we overpaid. It's a bigger picture than that. The marketing momentum of putting a contender out there with an owner with an image of actually giving a damn about the team and the fans hasn't been seen around here in a long, long time.

A renegade move is EXACTLY what it is, and I like it for that very reason. The loss of market value of the chips involved wouldn't be as great as the loss of falling out of contention YET AGAIN after all the marketing and public relations victories this new administration has achieved IN THE REDS COMMUNITY.

Screw playing it safe as we sink to the cellar yet again. I've seen enough of that in the last few years to last a lifetime.

Yeah, we could have done better. But we've stayed afloat and we're still in contention. What the hell more can we ask?


You're exactly right. All I kept hearing, going into the break, were echoes of many fans saying it will be "same-o same-o" with this team and the FO as we fade into the sunset in the second half.

It was a darn BOLD move... and I will dare to also enter the term "risky" (we'll see).

How many threads did we see earlier screaming to FIX THIS BULLPEN? ;)

How many times were we all reading, and wondering, what this FO was gonna do to correct this late inning mess?.... "Do something Wayne!" was all I heard.

Easier said then done.

Were those same individuals also cognizent of the scarcity and tightness of this year's pitching market, and that it was not going to be such an easy task? I wonder if they were in our GM's shoes, were privy to all the other intangibles, if they would have had the guts to make such a move? ;)

It could very well turn out to be a bad move, as far as the return/production we get from these young arms.

Even the best of GMs make questionable to bad moves (decisions) at times. Think the Boston brass did with Arroyo/Pena, or Cleveland with Phillips?

And does anyone think that Larkin had any input/influence with Bowden on acquiring Lopez, who was Felipe's mentor?

But I really feel this trade has probably made alot of GMs uneasy and furious, seeing what the Reds paid for middle relief. What are they gonna have to forfeit now?

M2
07-17-2006, 08:34 PM
Exactly right. I don't get how everyone seems to think that Krivsky just fell off a turnip truck and got fleeced unknowingly.

I think he knew it was lopsided and did it anyway to stay afloat this year.

I agree that he had to know it was lopsided, though I hope he did to win this year, not stay afloat. My fear is at best it only accomplishes the stay afloat part and puts the club at talent disadvantage moving forward.


I think it's a big picture move, with broader implications than the market value of the trading chips involved.

While I agree Krivsky's still remaking this team (and will be for the next few years), I look at this as a small picture move. The Reds nominally need bullpen help now and Krivsky got some nominal bullpen help.


And I don't think we're done by a long shot.

I'm not sure what else Krivsky can do at this juncture. After having overpaid like he just did I doubt anyone's going to cut him a bargain. Unless he wants to put higher profile talent than Kearns and Lopez on the block, I'm guessing this will be the club's main move this summer.


I think it's a "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" kind of move for THIS YEAR. And I think the pieces we picked up keep us in contention a while longer, whereas no deal assured that we sink.

I've certainly been of the opinion that this team was built to fade. However, this deal hasn't changed my opinion on that subject. I also think Kearns and, especially, Lopez could have fetched more intriguing talent before this month ran out.


Yeah, we overpaid. It's a bigger picture than that. The marketing momentum of putting a contender out there with an owner with an image of actually giving a damn about the team and the fans hasn't been seen around here in a long, long time.

Though don't you lose all that momentum if the move doesn't actually lead to anything? For instance, Carl Lindner opened the team wallet in the 2004/5 offseason and a lot of folks thought that had significance until the whole contraption went up in smoke. To me, when you deal 26-year-old players with talent and some accomplishment on their resumes, you need to have sustainable momentum in your sites.


A renegade move is EXACTLY what it is, and I like it for that very reason. The loss of market value of the chips involved wouldn't be as great as the loss of falling out of contention YET AGAIN after all the marketing and public relations victories this new administration has achieved IN THE REDS COMMUNITY.

Screw playing it safe as we sink to the cellar yet again. I've seen enough of that in the last few years to last a lifetime.

I'm with you in applauding the chutzpah of the deal, but when I get back to Majewski and Bray I just can't get behind the move.


Yeah, we could have done better. But we've stayed afloat and we're still in contention. What the hell more can we ask?

I've kind of had a Robert Duvall in "Colors" about this team for a number of years now - "And the papa bull says 'No son, let's walk down the hill ...' "

I wouldn't mind barreling after the here and now, but I think this most recent deal misses that target and has put the team a step or two back for 2007 and beyond. It's the latter part that's really bugging me. I was of the opinion the Reds, with a few shrewd move this summer and winter, had a legitimate shot at 2007. Now I'm not as sure the club has the trade value to make that happen.

Virginia Beach Reds
07-17-2006, 09:04 PM
And all to familiar, Lopez commits two more errors at short tonight. I have to admit, I do not miss that on a nightly basis.

gonelong
07-17-2006, 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
Exactly right. I don't get how everyone seems to think that Krivsky just fell off a turnip truck and got fleeced unknowingly.

I think he knew it was lopsided and did it anyway to stay afloat this year.


I agree that he had to know it was lopsided, though I hope he did to win this year, not stay afloat. My fear is at best it only accomplishes the stay afloat part and puts the club at talent disadvantage moving forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
I think it's a big picture move, with broader implications than the market value of the trading chips involved.


While I agree Krivsky's still remaking this team (and will be for the next few years), I look at this as a small picture move. The Reds nominally need bullpen help now and Krivsky got some nominal bullpen help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
And I don't think we're done by a long shot.


I'm not sure what else Krivsky can do at this juncture. After having overpaid like he just did I doubt anyone's going to cut him a bargain. Unless he wants to put higher profile talent than Kearns and Lopez on the block, I'm guessing this will be the club's main move this summer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
I think it's a "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" kind of move for THIS YEAR. And I think the pieces we picked up keep us in contention a while longer, whereas no deal assured that we sink.


I've certainly been of the opinion that this team was built to fade. However, this deal hasn't changed my opinion on that subject. I also think Kearns and, especially, Lopez could have fetched more intriguing talent before this month ran out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
Yeah, we overpaid. It's a bigger picture than that. The marketing momentum of putting a contender out there with an owner with an image of actually giving a damn about the team and the fans hasn't been seen around here in a long, long time.


Though don't you lose all that momentum if the move doesn't actually lead to anything? For instance, Carl Lindner opened the team wallet in the 2004/5 offseason and a lot of folks thought that had significance until the whole contraption went up in smoke. To me, when you deal 26-year-old players with talent and some accomplishment on their resumes, you need to have sustainable momentum in your sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
A renegade move is EXACTLY what it is, and I like it for that very reason. The loss of market value of the chips involved wouldn't be as great as the loss of falling out of contention YET AGAIN after all the marketing and public relations victories this new administration has achieved IN THE REDS COMMUNITY.

Screw playing it safe as we sink to the cellar yet again. I've seen enough of that in the last few years to last a lifetime.


I'm with you in applauding the chutzpah of the deal, but when I get back to Majewski and Bray I just can't get behind the move.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RFS62
Yeah, we could have done better. But we've stayed afloat and we're still in contention. What the hell more can we ask?


I've kind of had a Robert Duvall in "Colors" about this team for a number of years now - "And the papa bull says 'No son, let's walk down the hill ...' "

I wouldn't mind barreling after the here and now, but I think this most recent deal misses that target and has put the team a step or two back for 2007 and beyond. It's the latter part that's really bugging me. I was of the opinion the Reds, with a few shrewd move this summer and winter, had a legitimate shot at 2007. Now I'm not as sure the club has the trade value to make that happen.

This reads like a transcript of my thoughts over the last few days. The quintessential representation of the angel on one shoulder, devil on the other. In this specific case, I have yet to determine which is which.

This trade is like getting a date with that girl you've had your eye on forever. Its both exhilirating and terrifying all at the same time.

GL

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 11:50 PM
This reads like a transcript of my thoughts over the last few days. The quintessential representation of the angel on one shoulder, devil on the other. In this specific case, I have yet to determine which is which.

This trade is like getting a date with that girl you've had your eye on forever. Its both exhilirating and terrifying all at the same time.

GL

Exhilirating only because it's terrifying.

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 12:26 AM
And all to familiar, Lopez commits two more errors at short tonight. I have to admit, I do not miss that on a nightly basis.

I think I'll start a new thread any time Majewski and/or Bray gives up a hit.

SteelSD
07-18-2006, 01:35 AM
Exactly right. I don't get how everyone seems to think that Krivsky just fell off a turnip truck and got fleeced unknowingly.

I think he knew it was lopsided and did it anyway to stay afloat this year.

When you get fleeced for "now" value, that's not a good thing when you're trying to win "now".


I think it's a big picture move, with broader implications than the market value of the trading chips involved.

And I don't think we're done by a long shot.

And considering that the Reds have nothing more of real value to trade without touching the minors or swapping out Dunn/Harang/Arroyo, what exactly do the Reds have to trade that offers more value than what the Reds just traded? Where are these masterstroke additional moves going to come from? The Reds have already blown their wad this season. Considering the price they just paid for near-average middle relief, what do you think is actually coming?


I think it's a "damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" kind of move for THIS YEAR. And I think the pieces we picked up keep us in contention a while longer, whereas no deal assured that we sink.

The Reds were most likely to sink either way unless they actually pulled off a deal that could change the fortunes of the franchise. They didn't. But hey, let's ignore that being that Krivsky dramatically overpaid without understanding the actual return from a Run value perspective.


Yeah, we overpaid. It's a bigger picture than that. The marketing momentum of putting a contender out there with an owner with an image of actually giving a damn about the team and the fans hasn't been seen around here in a long, long time.

Action without intelligence doesn't equal contender. There's little to be gained regarding attendance this season because fans don't come out in droves to see teams that have failed in the past simply because they've made a move in the trade market. Fans come out to see teams that have proven they're contenders after they advance in the playoffs. If a team doesn't advance, then you'd better be really good at advancing the intelligence level of your fan base (Milwaukee). Unfortunately, the Reds don't have that ability.


A renegade move is EXACTLY what it is, and I like it for that very reason. The loss of market value of the chips involved wouldn't be as great as the loss of falling out of contention YET AGAIN after all the marketing and public relations victories this new administration has achieved IN THE REDS COMMUNITY.

Screw playing it safe as we sink to the cellar yet again. I've seen enough of that in the last few years to last a lifetime.

Brave doesn't equal smart. Smart is what the Reds need. Instead, we got brave. That might be enough for you but it's not enough for me.


Yeah, we could have done better. But we've stayed afloat and we're still in contention. What the hell more can we ask?

Smart. That's what we can ask for. Intelligence over bravado. As soon as I see it, I'll let you know.

And, BTW, one subjective point that no one has mentioned yet- Jim Bowden has a history of pawning off injured players. Not saying that's necessarily the case here but considering the recent performance of an reliver (Majewski) who averages 17 pitches per Inning, it's something to consider.

oregonred
07-18-2006, 01:40 AM
And all to familiar, Lopez commits two more errors at short tonight. I have to admit, I do not miss that on a nightly basis.

1-4, HR and 2 errors. Just trying to keep up with ARod I think. :)
Kearns DNP

I like the direction of the trade with young pitching. I would have liked to see Krivsky tempt a drooling Bowden with Kearns straight up for Bray + Maj (throw in Wagner). Maybe he did and/or felt he needed to move ASAP as opposed to playing possum for a couple of weeks and expanded the deal to include Felipe? As I've said, I have always liked AK27 and dreamed of the Dunn + AK combo leading the Reds offense until the next decase, but have felt pretty disappointed with Keanrs since the Ray King injury. I still can't get past his career high being 387ABs over his first four seasons. His RC/27, has been ok, but pretty pedestrian since 2002. Maybe he's just been unlucky. Maybe he's just a lessor JD Drew. Regardless I don't want to be the team paying him in year six of service time or worse signing him to the first LTC.

The window to move Felipe was between now and this offseason. Again, I don't want to be the team paying him ~$5m next season, $7M in 2008 and/or signing him to a 4/30 type contract between now and then.

The thing I like in addition to low service time MLB pitching is that it should be clear Dunn + EE is the offensive core for the next many seasons. That's the correct decision.

Nugget
07-18-2006, 01:59 AM
The other point appears that some overvalue hitting and undervalue pitching. When they say Dunn can get you #1 starter I think that's where it falls apart. Even though a Dunn will be there day in day out the #1 starter is more valuable. The difference between a 40HR hitter and 30HR hitter is a lot different to a 15 game winner v a 10 game winner. The same goes for tolerance. Much more tolerant of a hitter going through a slump than a pitcher.

RFS62
07-18-2006, 06:37 AM
Brave doesn't equal smart. Smart is what the Reds need. Instead, we got brave. That might be enough for you but it's not enough for me.

Smart. That's what we can ask for. Intelligence over bravado. As soon as I see it, I'll let you know.



Smug and condescending doesn't equal intelligence either. As soon as I see you do otherwise, I'll let you know too.

I'm not holding my breath either.

RedFanAlways1966
07-18-2006, 08:01 AM
FeLo & AK w/ Nats uniforms on so far... 2-for-23 at the plate (6 Ks). More errors than hits from these two so far.

Can this slow start with their new club be attributed to the mental side of the trade? Obviously they went from a "contender" to a last-place team. They are human (despite their yearly salaries) and I have to wonder if the trade has a mental effect for a time.... esp. a young player, which they both are.

I wish them both the best (except when playing against their old team) in the future.

oneupper
07-18-2006, 08:40 AM
FeLo & AK w/ Nats uniforms on so far... 2-for-23 at the plate (6 Ks). More errors than hits from these two so far.

Can this slow start with their new club be attributed to the mental side of the trade? Obviously they went from a "contender" to a last-place team. They are human (despite their yearly salaries) and I have to wonder if the trade has a mental effect for a time.... esp. a young player, which they both are.

I wish them both the best (except when playing against their old team) in the future.


FeLo and AK were slumping when they were traded, which IMO is a better explantation their performance with the Nats. They haven't broken out of it yet.

TRF
07-18-2006, 09:02 AM
Bill DeWitt... here's a piece on DeWitts first year with the Reds, pretty interesting stuff (PDF) (http://www.baseballminutia.com/images/a.pdf)

Interesting article, and comparison. But a lot of what DeWitt did involved shuffling the lineup, career years and some players just being healthy. Jr./Robbie comparison is valid. When Griffey is healthy, this offense is markedly different.

But Krivsky traded a bad defender for an aging bad defender with lesser offensive value. Does the upgrade to the bullpen offset the decrease in offense? I don't think it does at all in this case.

The bad thing about this trade is it makes the pitching only marginally better while potentially making the offense much worse. Plus it did nothing for building towards the future.

In short, Krivsky wide eyed a big deal, and was hoping to catch lightning in a bottle once again. Bray might be the centerpiece to this deal. But of the other four players, three are blech, and one is pheh. That isn't enough for the offense the Reds gave up. not by half.

Slider
07-18-2006, 09:17 AM
I would have liked to see Krivsky tempt a drooling Bowden with Kearns straight up for Bray + Maj (throw in Wagner).

I guess we don't know what offers flew back and forth between Bowden & Kriv. WK may have proposed just such a deal... Nothing wrong with pure speculation...but it supposes the pieces had different values than what the final trade revealed.




The window to move Felipe was between now and this offseason. Again, I don't want to be the team paying him ~$5m next season, $7M in 2008 and/or signing him to a 4/30 type contract between now and then.


Wouldn't Felipe been even more difficult to move in the off season?
It makes sense to me that if future salary were a concern...then the closer he got to that inflated salary the less value he would have in trade.

westofyou
07-18-2006, 10:40 AM
But Krivsky traded a bad defender for an aging bad defender with lesser offensive value. Does the upgrade to the bullpen offset the decrease in offense? I don't think it does at all in this case

If that's all you get out of that part of the trade, so be it.

I think Bray was for Lopez and the Reds got Clayton to fill th gap left by Lopez, they also increased their baseball acumen in the infield more than any tool can measure, that's what I get out of it.

If the BP upgrade doesn't offset the offense does having a smart baseball player playing SS offset anything?

Because the Reds lost all confidence in Lopez's SS play and they seem to think something had to be done.

gonelong
07-18-2006, 10:45 AM
The Reds were most likely to sink either way unless they actually pulled off a deal that could change the fortunes of the franchise. They didn't. But hey, let's ignore that being that Krivsky dramatically overpaid without understanding the actual return from a Run value perspective.

I fully understand the return from a Run value perspective. I believe the entire organization has less talent than before the trade. However, IMO, the MLB team has a better chance to win games.

Maybe the trade doesn't work out. I can live with that.

I like the fact that the team continues to try and improve the club to give it a chance to make the playoffs. This trade alone doesn't jazz me as much as the changing of the culture. Cincinnati is slowly turning into an organization that has a chance to become a desirable place to play instead of one of the last outposts in the league.


Fans come out to see teams that have proven they're contenders after they advance in the playoffs.

You have to make the playoffs first and I think this season has given the Reds a real opportunity to do that. I think a trip to the playoffs and a few intersting off-season moves would significantly increase the season ticket holder base. Cincy wants to support the Reds, they Reds just has to give them a reason to.


Brave doesn't equal smart. Smart is what the Reds need. Instead, we got brave. That might be enough for you but it's not enough for me.

Maybe we needed brave at this point. Only time will tell.

I know hordes of smart people that are working 60 hour weeks. I also know more than a handful of seemingly less intelligent people (one who had an 8 on his ACTs in HS) that went out on their own, started a business, and are independently wealthy at < 40. Sometimes brave will do. Sometimes you have to take your shot even if its not the smartest thing to do. Buck the odds long enough and you'll lose for sure, but I can't get inline with playing the odds EVERY SINGLE TIME. Sometimes you have to take your shot and I think Krivsky looked at the schedule and noted that if the next 16 games were to slip away the season was pretty much over.

I can't really get on board that we know if this was a smart move or not. Baseball is a funny game and not predictable over short stretches of time. If the Cardinals had not floundered so badly as this point I might agree. I wouldn't have made this trade with only the wild-card being a possibility, but the division and wild-card are both still in reach this season.

The Reds are on pace for 85 Ws at this point. The way the wild-card race is shaping up 90 Ws might very well make you the representative for the NL.

I fully understand the trade, the return, and the ramifications of this trade failing. I don't mind it.

I am not jumping up and down for joy or expecting a playoff birth out of it, but I am expecting we will see some meaningful baseaball into mid-August for a change.

GL

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 10:48 AM
If that's all you get out of that part of the trade, so be it.

I think Bray was for Lopez and the Reds got Clayton to fill th gap left by Lopez, they also increased their baseball acumen in the infield more than any tool can measure, that's what I get out of it.

If the BP upgrade doesn't offset the offense does having a smart baseball player playing SS offset anything?

Because the Reds lost all confidence in Lopez's SS play and they seem to think something had to be done.

"Smart baseball player" is just another way of saying "veteran whose reputation overshadows his fading performance." It's a slick way of avoiding the hated term "Proven Veteran."

RFS62
07-18-2006, 10:56 AM
I fully understand the return from a Run value perspective. I believe the entire organization has less talent than before the trade. However, IMO, the MLB team has a better chance to win games.

Maybe the trade doesn't work out. I can live with that.

I like the fact that the team continues to try and improve the club to give it a chance to make the playoffs. This trade alone doesn't jazz me as much as the changing of the culture. Cincinnati is slowly turning into an organization that has a chance to become a desirable place to play instead of one of the last outposts in the league.



You have to make the playoffs first and I think this season has given the Reds a real opportunity to do that. I think a trip to the playoffs and a few intersting off-season moves would significantly increase the season ticket holder base. Cincy wants to support the Reds, they Reds just has to give them a reason to.



Maybe we needed brave at this point. Only time will tell.

I know hordes of smart people that are working 60 hour weeks. I also know more than a handful of seemingly less intelligent people (one who had an 8 on his ACTs in HS) that went out on their own, started a business, and are independently wealthy at < 40. Sometimes brave will do. Sometimes you have to take your shot even if its not the smartest thing to do. Buck the odds long enough and you'll lose for sure, but I can't get inline with playing the odds EVERY SINGLE TIME. Sometimes you have to take your shot and I think Krivsky looked at the schedule and noted that if the next 16 games were to slip away the season was pretty much over.

I can't really get on board that we know if this was a smart move or not. Baseball is a funny game and not predictable over short stretches of time. If the Cardinals had not floundered so badly as this point I might agree. I wouldn't have made this trade with only the wild-card being a possibility, but the division and wild-card are both still in reach this season.

The Reds are on pace for 85 Ws at this point. The way the wild-card race is shaping up 90 Ws might very well make you the representative for the NL.

I fully understand the trade, the return, and the ramifications of this trade failing. I don't mind it.

I am not jumping up and down for joy or expecting a playoff birth out of it, but I am expecting we will see some meaningful baseaball into mid-August for a change.

GL




Very well said.

:beerme:

westofyou
07-18-2006, 10:56 AM
"Smart baseball player" is just another way of saying "veteran whose reputation overshadows his fading performance." It's a slick way of avoiding the hated term "Proven Veteran."
I know all the hyperbole and metaphors... but I also know the difference between having David Klingler at QB and Steve DeBerg when thinking is the play they have to make.

TRF
07-18-2006, 11:07 AM
I know all the hyperbole and metaphors... but I also know the difference between having David Klingler at QB and Steve DeBerg when thinking is the play they have to make.

Thinking won't get to the ball in the hole any better than not thinking will. Every statistical metric says defensively, it's a wash, offensively a major downgrade.

westofyou
07-18-2006, 11:12 AM
Thinking won't get to the ball in the hole any better than not thinking will. Every statistical metric says defensively, it's a wash, offensively a major downgrade.
Did I mention defensive metrics?

Like I said the Reds lost confidence in Lopez's growth as ML SS, it's obvious that that 1/2 a step means more to you then them and currently they value what the SS will do with his grey matter not his glove.

Is it right?

I don't know... but I know Barry Larkin hanged around a long time for exactly that reason.

TRF
07-18-2006, 11:19 AM
Did I mention defensive metrics?

Like I said the Reds lost confidence in Lopez's growth as ML SS, it's obvious that that 1/2 a step means more to you then them and currently they value what the SS will do with his grey matter not his glove.

Is it right?

I don't know... but I know Barry Larkin hanged around a long time for exactly that reason.

Oooh. I was hoping you'd mention Larkin. Yep he sure did. but his mind was so keen about positioning that had it not been for injuries, the man might still be playing today. Admittedly I haven't seen Clayton in a while, but I don't remember him having the same rep, and since their careers overlapped, if he did have that rep, he surely would have been compared favorably to Larkin. I don't remember that happening ever.

Honestly, I'd have preferred the Reds lure Pokey Reese out of retirement than plop Clayton at SS everyday.

I get what you say though about management losing confidence in FeLo, but i believe it just goes to the trend I see in Krivsky. Not a patient man at all, and he very much undervalues offense.

Roy Tucker
07-18-2006, 11:22 AM
Posted this elsewhere so I thought I'd put it here too...

On a pure nuts and bolts baseball trade level. I think the Reds gave up too much. But I think there are some bootstrap meta-issues at play.

The Reds need to start building a winning tradition and they need to start now. What they have done since 1995 is lose and lose with regularity (1999 was an anomaly really). Castellini recognizes this and I think he has mandated Krivsky to start winning this year. Once the winning ball gets rolling, the momentum builds and fans get excited (and start attending games). Good, smart teams find a way to keep that momentum going (see Cardinals, Braves). I think the Reds are purging the losing attitude out of the organization and are getting that winning momentum going *right now*. Not next year, now.

Secondly, in modern day baseball, building for the future better be a 1 year or less plan. Teams that have 2-3 year plans are also called perpetual losers because those plans last 5-10 years. Good front offices can get a team healthy and winning in a hurry if they are smart. If you have perpetually failing long-term rebuilding plans (e.g. the Reds the past 10 years), your fan base just gets eroded down to the hard core fans which isn't a viable business model. For example, the Reds have a 12-15K hard core fan season ticket base which isn't enough. For the team to be viable and competitive, they need to get the fair weather fan to come on a regular basis. Winning does that.

So this trade, while maybe apparently long-term foolish, gives them a fighting chance to start winning now. And gets the winning ball rolling. Winning begets winning. I don't think its a coincidence that they went into the AS break looking flatter than a turd out of a tall cows butt and are now 4-0 post AS break

lollipopcurve
07-18-2006, 11:22 AM
I know Barry Larkin hanged around a long time for exactly that reason.

I figure it's a combination of physical and mental abilities. Claytonis highly gifted athletically (like Larkin was).

Unlike most, I guess, I'm looking forward to watching Clayton play. He was a stud athlete coming up, and was often compared to Larkin. Obviously he never matched Larkin's performance, but he's had enough ability "on both sides of the ball" to remain a starter in the middle of the diamond past the age of 35 -- not many can do that. He "knows how to play," they say, but I think we'll also be seeing a primo natural athlete who, even in the twilight, makes it look easy.

RFS62
07-18-2006, 11:24 AM
Posted this elsewhere so I thought I'd put it here too...

On a pure nuts and bolts baseball trade level. I think the Reds gave up too much. But I think there are some bootstrap meta-issues at play.

The Reds need to start building a winning tradition and they need to start now. What they have done since 1995 is lose and lose with regularity (1999 was an anomaly really). Castellini recognizes this and I think he has mandated Krivsky to start winning this year. Once the winning ball gets rolling, the momentum builds and fans get excited (and start attending games). Good, smart teams find a way to keep that momentum going (see Cardinals, Braves). I think the Reds are purging the losing attitude out of the organization and are getting that winning momentum going *right now*. Not next year, now.

Secondly, in modern day baseball, building for the future better be a 1 year or less plan. Teams that have 2-3 year plans are also called perpetual losers because those plans last 5-10 years. Good front offices can get a team healthy and winning in a hurry if they are smart. If you have perpetually failing long-term rebuilding plans (e.g. the Reds the past 10 years), your fan base just gets eroded down to the hard core fans which isn't a viable business model. For example, the Reds have a 12-15K hard core fan season ticket base which isn't enough. For the team to be viable and competitive, they need to get the fair weather fan to come on a regular basis. Winning does that.

So this trade, while maybe apparently long-term foolish, gives them a fighting chance to start winning now. And gets the winning ball rolling. Winning begets winning. I don't think its a coincidence that they went into the AS break looking flatter than a turd out of a tall cows butt and are now 4-0 post AS break



Yeah, I agree. It's bigger than an analysis of the chips involved.

OldXOhio
07-18-2006, 11:24 AM
Not a patient man at all

Taking the helm of a six year loser tends to cause that. A lot of folks on here recommended WK take a wrecking ball to the team when he took office. I'd say he's doing that.

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 11:25 AM
Did I mention defensive metrics?

Like I said the Reds lost confidence in Lopez's growth as ML SS, it's obvious that that 1/2 a step means more to you then them and currently they value what the SS will do with his grey matter not his glove.

Is it right?

I don't know... but I know Barry Larkin hanged around a long time for exactly that reason.

So have Juan Castro and Royce Clayton. Christian Guzman far outlasted his usefulness based on that kind of thinking.

Krivsky seems to have a man-crush on aging statues who "everybody" says are great fielders. And they are great fielders, if we choose to define "fielding" as catching balls hit directly at you and softly throwing them to a base. It's a Little League dad mentality -- "Hooray! My boy can catch and throw!"

But factor range into the equation, and suddenly they're not that great anymore.

westofyou
07-18-2006, 11:27 AM
Not a patient man at all, and he very much undervalues offense.

Or he knows that in the GAB undervaluing offense isn't going to be a long term problem.

Most Reds fans undervalue decent to good pitching.

That's what no starters since Rijo leading the team in Win Shares does to a fan base.

As for patience, the bus is being driven by the owner the map master of the cruise is Krivsky, but you can bet the pressure on the gas pedel has been applied by the driver.

Puffy
07-18-2006, 11:31 AM
Or he knows that in the GAB undervaluing offense isn't going to be a long term problem.



But we all know that the GAB is not an offense friendly park - It is homer friendly, but it suppresses singles, doubles and triples.

So if he keeps dragging HR hitters out of the Reds lineup, won't offense become a problem?

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 11:32 AM
Posted this elsewhere so I thought I'd put it here too...

On a pure nuts and bolts baseball trade level. I think the Reds gave up too much. But I think there are some bootstrap meta-issues at play.

The Reds need to start building a winning tradition and they need to start now. What they have done since 1995 is lose and lose with regularity (1999 was an anomaly really). Castellini recognizes this and I think he has mandated Krivsky to start winning this year. Once the winning ball gets rolling, the momentum builds and fans get excited (and start attending games). Good, smart teams find a way to keep that momentum going (see Cardinals, Braves). I think the Reds are purging the losing attitude out of the organization and are getting that winning momentum going *right now*. Not next year, now.

Secondly, in modern day baseball, building for the future better be a 1 year or less plan. Teams that have 2-3 year plans are also called perpetual losers because those plans last 5-10 years. Good front offices can get a team healthy and winning in a hurry if they are smart. If you have perpetually failing long-term rebuilding plans (e.g. the Reds the past 10 years), your fan base just gets eroded down to the hard core fans which isn't a viable business model. For example, the Reds have a 12-15K hard core fan season ticket base which isn't enough. For the team to be viable and competitive, they need to get the fair weather fan to come on a regular basis. Winning does that.

So this trade, while maybe apparently long-term foolish, gives them a fighting chance to start winning now. And gets the winning ball rolling. Winning begets winning. I don't think its a coincidence that they went into the AS break looking flatter than a turd out of a tall cows butt and are now 4-0 post AS break

All that rah-rah stuff is great if you think Majewski and Bray represent a significant upgrade. Their numbers say they don't.

Maybe they'll perform well, maybe they won't. It's a big gamble.

princeton
07-18-2006, 11:34 AM
All that rah-rah stuff is great if you think Majewski and Bray represent a significant upgrade. Their numbers say they don't..

you do understand whom they replaced, don't you?

westofyou
07-18-2006, 11:37 AM
But we all know that the GAB is not an offense friendly park - It is homer friendly, but it suppresses singles, doubles and triples.

So if he keeps dragging HR hitters out of the Reds lineup, won't offense become a problem?
From my Bill James Handbook I got me a 3 year Park Index of 104 for doubles and 98 for singles for the GAB.

Down in Miami the Fish have an 82 for 2b's and 91 for singles, that's a factor, not what the Reds have to deal with

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 11:38 AM
you do understand whom they replaced, don't you?

Yes. I also understand what it cost to make that replacement.

princeton
07-18-2006, 11:43 AM
Yes. I also understand what it cost to make that replacement.

so you're separating your arguments.

eye on the ball, now

RFS62
07-18-2006, 11:44 AM
Yes. I also understand what it cost to make that replacement.



How about what it would cost NOT to make that replacement.

That cost would be any chance of contending this year.

That cost appears to be calculated in different ways here. The owner of the team appears to think it would be unacceptable, after the start we've had since he took over.

That cost would have been in the public perception of his truthfullness when he said he would build a contender this year.

It appears he takes his word seriously. I understand how that's not something we're used to around here.

registerthis
07-18-2006, 11:46 AM
How about what it would cost NOT to make that replacement.

That cost would be any chance of contending this year.

Which goes back to a question posed several days ago: If the Reds do not make the playoffs this season, can this trade be considered successful?

westofyou
07-18-2006, 11:48 AM
Which goes back to a question posed several days ago: If the Reds do not make the playoffs this season, can this trade be considered successful?
If they get a 10,000 season ticket sale increase and some contracts for more luxury boxes and increased signage out of it I'd say it was succcesful.

RFS62
07-18-2006, 11:48 AM
Which goes back to a question posed several days ago: If the Reds do not make the playoffs this season, can this trade be considered successful?


Compared to doing nothing and continuing to run that sorry bullpen out there that we've seen before the trade?

I say yes.

Roy Tucker
07-18-2006, 11:48 AM
Maybe they'll perform well, maybe they won't. It's a big gamble.


I agree 100% with that its a big gamble. Whether its smart or foolish bravado has yet to be determined. There certainly seems to be no shortage of opinions on this.

I'm just glad this organization is trying to bust out of the navel-gazing entropy that it has been in for the better part of a decade.

M2
07-18-2006, 12:18 PM
Compared to doing nothing and continuing to run that sorry bullpen out there that we've seen before the trade?

I say yes.

Just a question to ponder here, would this have seemed like such a dramatic move to folks had Krivsky picked up Majewski and Bray equivalents for a lot less?

For instance, had Krivsky moved some minor league ballast to snag some middle relief not much different in quality than what the Reds acquired, would it have struck people as a serious bullpen upgrade? Or is the fact that Krivsky moved two everyday players to get the bullpen help what makes it seem dramatic?

Because my take is that sure it helps the bullpen, but not nearly enough and the team had bigger fish to fry than tweaking the middle relief.

registerthis
07-18-2006, 12:24 PM
If they get a 10,000 season ticket sale increase and some contracts for more luxury boxes and increased signage out of it I'd say it was succcesful.

I'm not sure why a team that failed to make the playoffs and made an unpopular trade would suddenly pique the interest of an additional 10,000 fans and corporate supporters...but, yes, if that did in fact happen then i would agree with you.

I certainly wouldn't hold my breath though.

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 12:27 PM
Just a question to ponder here, would this have seemed like such a dramatic move to folks had Krivsky picked up Majewski and Bray equivalents for a lot less?

For instance, had Krivsky moved some minor league ballast to snag some middle relief not much different in quality than what the Reds acquired, would it have struck people as a serious bullpen upgrade? Or is the fact that Krivsky moved two everyday players to get the bullpen help what makes it seem dramatic?

Because my take is that sure it helps the bullpen, but not nearly enough and the team had bigger fish to fry than tweaking the middle relief.

It's completely about the players the Reds gave up in the deal.

Trade away Olmedo, Bergolla, and Aurilia for Bray OR Majewski, and we're not even having this conversation.

Trade away Lopez alone or Kearns alone, and I can live with it.

My entire problem with this deal (and yes, my eye is on the ball, princeton) is that the Reds gave up too much for too little in return.

M2
07-18-2006, 12:29 PM
I'm not sure why a team that failed to make the playoffs and made an unpopular trade would suddenly pique the interest of an additional 10,000 fans and corporate supporters...but, yes, if that did in fact happen then i would agree with you.

I certainly wouldn't hold my breath though.

To add to that, the only way middle relievers can get fans to the park is if their addition makes the team a viable contender. No one's buying a ticket to see Gary Majewski or Bill Bray (or Royce Clayton).

So it gets back to whether some not-horrible pitching in middle relief really is the panacea for the Reds this season. If it isn't this move isn't going to affect the gate.

pedro
07-18-2006, 12:30 PM
Just a question to ponder here, would this have seemed like such a dramatic move to folks had Krivsky picked up Majewski and Bray equivalents for a lot less?

For instance, had Krivsky moved some minor league ballast to snag some middle relief not much different in quality than what the Reds acquired, would it have struck people as a serious bullpen upgrade? Or is the fact that Krivsky moved two everyday players to get the bullpen help what makes it seem dramatic?

Because my take is that sure it helps the bullpen, but not nearly enough and the team had bigger fish to fry than tweaking the middle relief.

I just don't think that guys like Bray and Majewski were available for for a lot less, otherwise they'd be on some other team right now.

The way I look at it the Reds had decided that they were going to cut bait on Lopez this off season. A decision that I can't really disagree with when you examine all aspects of Lopez as a player with the exception of his potential with the bat (fielding, service time, contract, agent etc).

If the Reds really wanted to get value out of Lopez then he should have been playing 2B this year in order to prove that he actually can because he sure as hell has little to no value as a SS IMO and until he proves he can play 2B he doesn't have a lot of value there either. What's left if he can't play MI? A below average third baseman? To me Lopez' bat is only a plus in the context of a MI. And he can't play there, then I don't have a lot of interest in him and I doubt a lot of other teams did either.

westofyou
07-18-2006, 12:40 PM
I'm not sure why a team that failed to make the playoffs and made an unpopular trade would suddenly pique the interest of an additional 10,000 fans and corporate supporters...but, yes, if that did in fact happen then i would agree with you.

I certainly wouldn't hold my breath though.

They already didn't make the playoffs?

Damn.... I must have blinked.

This isn't a black and white issue, but you can bet that all ticket sales are not created equal and not all of them come with the caveat that the team must be a "playoff team" sometimes folks just want to be entertained with something other then the same old song and dance.

This move is like putting on a John Cage album at a High School party.

VR
07-18-2006, 12:41 PM
Just a question to ponder here, would this have seemed like such a dramatic move to folks had Krivsky picked up Majewski and Bray equivalents for a lot less?

For instance, had Krivsky moved some minor league ballast to snag some middle relief not much different in quality than what the Reds acquired, would it have struck people as a serious bullpen upgrade? Or is the fact that Krivsky moved two everyday players to get the bullpen help what makes it seem dramatic?

Because my take is that sure it helps the bullpen, but not nearly enough and the team had bigger fish to fry than tweaking the middle relief.

The X factor is of course the market conditions for middle relief/ setup guys. I don't think anyone 'on the surface' doesn't think the Reds paid a lot for the return, but perhaps Krivsky tried for months to acquire some for minor leaguers and didn't even get a nibble.

princeton
07-18-2006, 12:42 PM
had Krivsky moved some minor league ballast to snag some middle relief not much different in quality than what the Reds acquired, would it have struck people as a serious bullpen upgrade? Or is the fact that Krivsky moved two everyday players to get the bullpen help what makes it seem dramatic?

Because my take is that sure it helps the bullpen, but not nearly enough and the team had bigger fish to fry than tweaking the middle relief.

I think that moving these two players in particular was probably as important a part of the deal as the return pitchers.

Heath
07-18-2006, 12:47 PM
I just don't think that guys like Bray and Majewski were available for for a lot less, otherwise they'd be on some other team right now.

The way I look at it the Reds had decided that they were going to cut bait on Lopez this off season. A decision that I can't really disagree with when you examine all aspects of Lopez as a player with the exception of his potential with the bat (fielding, service time, contract, agent etc).

If the Reds really wanted to get value out of Lopez then he should have been playing 2B this year in order to prove that he actually can because he sure as hell has little to no value as a SS IMO and until he proves he can play 2B he doesn't have a lot of value there either. What's left if he can't play MI? A below average third baseman? To me Lopez' bat is only a plus in the context of a MI. And he can't play there, then I don't have a lot of interest in him and I doubt a lot of other teams did either.


On top of all of that, I don't think the Lopez/Kearns would have netted anything of value, honestly. There are more questions than answers on either one of those guys. Face it, Kearns has potential when healthy and not scared of Ray King sitting on him. He's never had more than 400 abs in year, plus he spent time sulking in Louisville last year.

Lopez had a great last year, but hasn't been able to do the same this year offensively or defensively. He might be a one-season wonder.

We are dealing with a WMP -style trade here. Arroyo fit a need. Pena's been...well Pena.

The only team that was going to bite on those two is Jim Bowden. Bowden gave up his two best bullpen guys currently on the roster, a vet to play SS (who is Tony Womack 2.0) a decent pitching prospect, and a Brandon Phillips-wore-out-his-welcome type player in Harris, plus in an unrelated move from the same team, a waiver-wire pickup in Watson.

I think the Reds got the market value of what they NEEDED. Not based on POTENTIAL.

registerthis
07-18-2006, 12:49 PM
They already didn't make the playoffs?

Damn.... I must have blinked.

No I asked if this team DIDN'T make the playoffs, could the trade still be considered successful. You responded to that question, so I assumed you were saying that even if they didn't make the playoffs, but were somehow able to attract that many new fans, the trade would be a success.

I'm not a soothsayer, I'm not making predictions one way or the other.


This move is like putting on a John Cage album at a High School party.

Only if you play 4:33.

M2
07-18-2006, 01:04 PM
I think that moving these two players in particular was probably as important a part of the deal as the return pitchers.

Kearns possibly, though corner OF bats with some power are at their hardest to fnd in well over a decade. The number of teams with inept offense in the OF corners is startling in fact.

Lopez, however, clawed back from a potentially career-ending injury and turned himself into an All-Star. Sure he's got issues with his game (with a future likely at 2B or in CF), but he doesn't strike me as a guy you gnaw off an arm to get rid of.

Benihana
07-18-2006, 01:13 PM
To add to that, the only way middle relievers can get fans to the park is if their addition makes the team a viable contender. No one's buying a ticket to see Gary Majewski or Bill Bray (or Royce Clayton).

So it gets back to whether some not-horrible pitching in middle relief really is the panacea for the Reds this season. If it isn't this move isn't going to affect the gate.

Not to nitpick here, but not too many people have been coming out for Kearns and FeLo either. People come out if you win and they don't if you lose, with the only small exceptions being all-Century players like Jr. Don't kid yourself that Austin Kearns was making a big difference in attendance.

Even though it's hard for them to see it, I think most of the smart people on this board are in agreement on the trade: From a pure talent level we definitely overpaid. However the status quo wasn't working, we had viable replacements, and we were able to address the biggest gaping hole on the roster without mortgaging the crown jewels of the franchise (Dunn, Bailey, Bruce). We had tried minor tweakings, (trading for Yan, calling up Standstridge, moving Coffey to closer) but they weren't working. We needed a major overhaul. All this in a year where for the first time this decade, we are in a playoff spot in mid-July. Although my initial reaction to the deal was shock and dismay, I think I would do the trade again if I'm Krivsky.

princeton
07-18-2006, 01:17 PM
Kearns possibly, though corner OF bats with some power are at their hardest to fnd in well over a decade. The number of teams with inept offense in the OF corners is startling in fact.

Lopez, however, clawed back from a potentially career-ending injury and turned himself into an All-Star. Sure he's got issues with his game (with a future likely at 2B or in CF), but he doesn't strike me as a guy you gnaw off an arm to get rid of.

Lopez didn't have a position other than third, and that's got a better, cheaper prospect in place. I've long thought that he could do the CF thing for the Reds, but you can't really put him there now and help the defense. Probably doesn't help next year, either, and after that he's pricey. So it was either bench him (and we already have Freel doing the supersub thing) or trade him.

Same with Kearns. He's VERY useful if and when Jr goes down, but you couldn't play those 3 in OF at the same time.

we'll miss them, esp. if and when Jr goes down, but this move was about defense, Griffey, Dunn's longterm, and the passion of Freel/Denorfio, as much as it was about pitching.

Benihana
07-18-2006, 01:20 PM
Kearns possibly, though corner OF bats with some power are at their hardest to fnd in well over a decade. The number of teams with inept offense in the OF corners is startling in fact.

Lopez, however, clawed back from a potentially career-ending injury and turned himself into an All-Star. Sure he's got issues with his game (with a future likely at 2B or in CF), but he doesn't strike me as a guy you gnaw off an arm to get rid of.

I agree with both you and princeton here, although I would say that unless they were going to flip-flop FeLo and BP (which I'd been advocating for the last two months), there was nowhere for FeLo to play. It is pretty much the consenus that he could no longer be trusted at SS, especially with EdE coming back at 3B. That leaves CF, where there is obviously no place for him as long as George Griffey is here. So where does he (and his inflated salary for next year) go? To another team is the only logical answer.

EDIT: Darn princeton, looks like you beat me to it

M2
07-18-2006, 01:30 PM
Not to nitpick here, but not too many people have been coming out for Kearns and FeLo either. People come out if you win and they don't if you lose, with the only small exceptions being all-Century players like Jr. Don't kid yourself that Austin Kearns was making a big difference in attendance.

Certainly Reds fans seem to be slaves to the win column, historically speaking. Though a a former first-round draft pick who's come up through your organization and is on a .274/30/95 pace certainly would be a draw in most towns. Likewise, 26-year-old All-Star shortstops tend to have an appeal in other locales. So I agree with the premise that wins are king when it comes to the Reds and the gate, but that's partially because Reds fans don't seem to form much of any constituency around the team's players.

M2
07-18-2006, 01:37 PM
Lopez didn't have a position other than third, and that's got a better, cheaper prospect in place. I've long thought that he could do the CF thing for the Reds, but you can't really put him there now and help the defense. Probably doesn't help next year, either, and after that he's pricey. So it was either bench him (and we already have Freel doing the supersub thing) or trade him.

Same with Kearns. He's VERY useful if and when Jr goes down, but you couldn't play those 3 in OF at the same time.

we'll miss them, esp. if and when Jr goes down, but this move was about defense, Griffey, Dunn's longterm, and the passion of Freel/Denorfio, as much as it was about pitching.

Except the SS defense is still poor and the Ken Griffey Jr. cigar store indian is still stationed in CF. If only the move was about the defense. Heck, I thought the team needed to address the defense back when it acquired Arroyo (because why trade for pitching and give it no support).

Had the Reds traded for Cesar Izturis or Erick Aybar, then I could buy into the notion that this move revolved around defense. Unfortunately the team the Reds are playing today isn't much of a defensive change from the team the finished the first half of the season.

Dumping talented guys because you can't figure out how to deploy them strikes me as a poor way to run your team. Hutch found spots for Frank Robinson and Eddie Kasko back in 1961. Sparky figued out how to get Rose, Foster and Griffey into the lineup. Lou Piniella managed to find a spot for Mariano Duncan.

As for Dunn's long-term outlook, this trade has put the Reds in a position where I don't think we have to worry overly much about that issue. Enjoy him this year and possibly in 2007.

princeton
07-18-2006, 01:48 PM
If only the move was about the defense..

FeLo to third would have helped the defense, too. But it wasn't only about defense. It was also about committing to certain players. FeLo turned out to be lower on the list of keepers than EdE. And that's the right choice, IMO

oregonred
07-18-2006, 01:50 PM
Certainly Reds fans seem to be slaves to the win column, historically speaking. Though a a former first-round draft pick who's come up through your organization and is on a .274/30/95 pace certainly would be a draw in most towns. Likewise, 26-year-old All-Star shortstops tend to have an appeal in other locales. So I agree with the premise that wins are king when it comes to the Reds and the gate, but that's partially because Reds fans don't seem to form much of any constituency around the team's players.

What's the Lopez Marketing Campaign: Come watch a .740 career OPS SS boot around a ball or two -- and as a bonus it could happen at anytime? ;)

The Kearns Campaign: Come see a local Kentucky boy hit, field and throw (I would pay for the latter of the three) -- and get here quick because his next season shortening injury might happen at anytime?

The history of someone being a 1st round pick in baseball is meaningless for the purchase decision of 99.9% of the fans attending any given game. No one cares.

I think it's more a team issue than a fan issue. When you haven't had a meaningful game played after August 1st since 1999 and a franchise historically poor at marketing it's marketable assets -- what do you expect? Winning trumps all, but the Reds need a campaign to market around Dunn's HR prowess, Freel's craziness, Arroyo's quirkiness and KGJ as the All Century in-person legend live and in person. Those are the assets that are the most interesting and marketable to the average fan.

A winning season and playoff berth would have more impact witht he season ticket base. But why not focus on the above quartet as a start to increase your walk up gate this season.

flyer85
07-18-2006, 01:50 PM
Unfortunately the team the Reds are playing today isn't much of a defensive change from the team the finished the first half of the season. But the offense has been rather seriously downgraded when you add Clayton, possibly Denorfia and swap EE for RA.

BP on Denorfia

Sure Chris Denorfia (.347/.409/.454) has some nice numbers, but he's a singles hitter who is the classic example of the kind of player that everybody wants playing every day... until he actually starts playing every day and his weaknesses are exposed.

M2
07-18-2006, 01:54 PM
flyer, BP strikes me as partially right though my guess is Denorfia's bat would play just fine in CF.

M2
07-18-2006, 01:58 PM
FeLo to third would have helped the defense, too. But it wasn't only about defense. It was also about committing to certain players. FeLo turned out to be lower on the list of keepers than EdE. And that's the right choice, IMO

Or they just could have flip-flopped FeLo and Phillips. Or they could have traded Kearns and moved FeLo to the OF. Seems to me your argument is they prioritized not having to think about what to do with FeLo over working with the talent they had.

NJReds
07-18-2006, 01:58 PM
Wasn't BP the same organization that predicted Harang would peak as a #4/#5 starter when the Guillen deal went down?

M2
07-18-2006, 02:02 PM
Wasn't BP the same organization that predicted Harang would peak as a #4/#5 starter when the Guillen deal went down?

Probably, though to be fair, Harang was a deep sleeper.

princeton
07-18-2006, 02:05 PM
Or they just could have flip-flopped FeLo and Phillips. Or they could have traded Kearns and moved FeLo to the OF.

they were surely looking for something that might actually work within the next 3-15 months. Third base or supersub were, unfortunately for FeLo fans (and I'm one), occupied.

I'd have had him at a different position long ago. It was easy to see this coming. It's not Krivsky's fault

ochre
07-18-2006, 02:13 PM
Or they just could have flip-flopped FeLo and Phillips. Or they could have traded Kearns and moved FeLo to the OF. Seems to me your argument is they prioritized not having to think about what to do with FeLo over working with the talent they had.
The same inertia that sees Griffey still in CF and Dunn in LF.

flyer85
07-18-2006, 02:18 PM
flyer, BP strikes me as partially right though my guess is Denorfia's bat would play just fine in CF.where he definitely won't be playing. I don't know if his bat would play Ok but his speed sure would.

Rojo
07-18-2006, 02:21 PM
Or they just could have flip-flopped FeLo and Phillips. Or they could have traded Kearns and moved FeLo to the OF. Seems to me your argument is they prioritized not having to think about what to do with FeLo over working with the talent they had.


Or they prioritized pitching over accomodating a middling hitter with a leaden glove and a foggy grasp of the game.

Princeton's right, had they made FeLo a thirdbasemen two years ago, his value would be higher. We'd keep him for this year, win a ring (!!) and move him for young pitching in the spring. Enter EdE.

I wonder if Krivsky still tries to move Milton and hand the job to Bray.

Caveat Emperor
07-18-2006, 02:26 PM
they were surely looking for something that might actually work within the next 3-15 months. Third base or supersub were, unfortunately for FeLo fans (and I'm one), occupied.

I'd have had him at a different position long ago. It was easy to see this coming. It's not Krivsky's fault

To a certain extent, every move Krivsky has made this year has been about cleaning up some turd left sitting in the room by a previous regime.

Lopez being developed and kept in the wrong position seems to be only the latest to be swept up.

flyer85
07-18-2006, 02:26 PM
I wonder if Krivsky still tries to move Milton and hand the job to Bray.I'd say the chances of Bray becoming a starter are only slightly above zero. He was a closer in college, has been in the minors and does not have a 3rd pitch.

registerthis
07-18-2006, 03:03 PM
FeLo to third would have helped the defense, too.

Now, if someone could explain this, because this isn't the first time I've heard it.

If Lopez has significant problems throwing accurately from SS to 1B, why would those problems evaporate if he moved to a position farther away from the first base bag? Perhaps there's an angle I'm missing, but that doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.

ochre
07-18-2006, 03:07 PM
Now, if someone could explain this, because this isn't the first time I've heard it.

If Lopez has significant problems throwing accurately from SS to 1B, why would those problems evaporate if he moved to a position farther away from the first base bag? Perhaps there's an angle I'm missing, but that doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.
it's a range issue. People aren't really all that concerned about his throwing errors. He has a strong arm, and generally there is more time to set and throw from 3b.

M2
07-18-2006, 03:40 PM
Now, if someone could explain this, because this isn't the first time I've heard it.

If Lopez has significant problems throwing accurately from SS to 1B, why would those problems evaporate if he moved to a position farther away from the first base bag? Perhaps there's an angle I'm missing, but that doesn't strike me as a recipe for success.

Me either, plus I don't think he's going to offer the kind of power you'd want from 3B on a consistent basis.

While I've always maintained FeLo's a short-timer at SS, I'm glad the team kept him there. The position is now a gaping void. At least you had a player giving you something from the position (OB and speed) as opposed to the nothing we'll be seeing until a suitable replacement is found. Plus, no one's value ever dropped because he's stationed at SS. Perhaps other teams don't see FeLo as a SS, but I'm guessing they do see a guy they'd gladly station elsewhere. His positioning didn't limit his value. If anything, it kept his deployment options open.


Or they prioritized pitching over accomodating a middling hitter with a leaden glove and a foggy grasp of the game.

Middling pitching beats middling hitting? Perhaps.

Though I think Felipe deserves some credit for significantly increasing his game IQ since he arrived in Cincinnati. He was one of the worst baserunners on the planet when he arrived and now he's turned himself into a threat on the bases. He also figured out how to hit RHPs, which was something he couldn't do to save himself back in 2003-4. He also improved in the field, though never enough to warrant sticking at SS for a very long time.

OldXOhio
07-18-2006, 04:04 PM
To a certain extent, every move Krivsky has made this year has been about cleaning up some turd left sitting in the room by a previous regime.

Lopez being developed and kept in the wrong position seems to be only the latest to be swept up.

As well as turnabouts on pickups of his own that didn't pan out (Q, Ross, Yan). I'm guessing WK knows there's a gaping hole at SS and that's being discussed as we speak.

Rojo
07-18-2006, 04:04 PM
Middling pitching beats middling hitting? Perhaps.

Yeah, I think it does. And its really question of need. Where would this team be with a middling bullpen?

Caveat Emperor
07-18-2006, 04:09 PM
Yeah, I think it does. And its really question of need. Where would this team be with a middling bullpen?

Maybe a win or three better.

The real question is where would this team be with a competent 3rd starter.

REDREAD
07-18-2006, 04:53 PM
Just a question to ponder here, would this have seemed like such a dramatic move to folks had Krivsky picked up Majewski and Bray equivalents for a lot less?

For instance, had Krivsky moved some minor league ballast to snag some middle relief not much different in quality than what the Reds acquired, would it have struck people as a serious bullpen upgrade? Or is the fact that Krivsky moved two everyday players to get the bullpen help what makes it seem dramatic?
.

Interesting take.. Had the Reds traded four mediocre AA talents for Majewski + Bray, I wonder if the perception of the two would be different.

It does seem though that due to the high price paid to get these two guys has people expecting them to be a savior and get us to the playoffs.

If we had given up what relievers historically get traded for at the deadline, would the fan base be more restless for "the big move"? Would some fans be less jazzed at this BP upgrade?

SteelSD
07-18-2006, 10:52 PM
I fully understand the return from a Run value perspective. I believe the entire organization has less talent than before the trade. However, IMO, the MLB team has a better chance to win games.

And I completely understand that the motive for the deal. I understand why Krivsky did what he did. I didn't predict the players, but I sure saw the trend a while ago.

I'm just trying to figure out where losing Run value makes a team more likely to win games. There's almost zero defensive upside to this deal, so the idea that more Wins are possible is a direct result of the concept that fewer late-inning leads are blown. Problem is that with less offense you're going to see fewer late-inning leads and narrower late-inning margains to the plus side (and more late-inning margains to the negative). That's the dynamic we both understand when you swap offense for relief pitching.

That's the Kool-Aid the front office is trying to sell: more "situational Wins". But they don't seem to understand the interaction between Runs Scored and Runs Allowed and it definitely doesn't appear that they understand defense at anything more than an "routine play/reputation" level. In fact, the club they fielded tonight was probably the worst fielding club they've sent out there all season. We also need to remember that Jerry Narron hasn't demonstrated that he really understands bullpen usage patterns. If he did, he might not have left Eric Milton in to give up the granny I just saw Beltran hit with two relievers up in the pen.

Now, that doesn't mean the return is worse just based on Narron's usage patterns but if he doesn't learn then he's certainly not maximizing the potential positive result.


Maybe the trade doesn't work out. I can live with that.

And, y'know, I could live with a good risk that didn't work out. I don't see this one as that.


I like the fact that the team continues to try and improve the club to give it a chance to make the playoffs. This trade alone doesn't jazz me as much as the changing of the culture. Cincinnati is slowly turning into an organization that has a chance to become a desirable place to play instead of one of the last outposts in the league.

I understand where you're coming from here. Aggressive moves in the pursuit of filling need immediately are attractive on the surface. Action is enticing, after all. But the problem is that I don't really see much of a culture change here. Versus O'Brien? Sure. That guy ran the club between naps and studies of advanced corporate-speak. The owner preceeding Castellini didn't seem to care about winning. Understood.

But the GM who preceeded O'Brien was action. Now, maybe we can make an argument that Castellini's presence is a significant culture gain, but I don't see Krivsky as that yet. And when we look at how universally scorned this trade was, I'm not sure that Castellini's influence will matter if it works out as projected. Because if it works out as projected, the Reds lose short-term and long-term. If that's the case, the most likely perception is that a team set itself back while making a hasty, ill-advised move. If the move propels the Reds into the playoffs against the odds, your best-case scenario is a perception that the Reds did it because of the move even if the addition/subtraction game wasn't the actual cause.

Yeah, we're talking about perception here and that's a slippery slope. Wanting to win is fine, but I don't see high-performance Free Agents jumping to join the Reds unless the culture change results in playoff advancement and a significant increase in payroll. Take a look at Minnesota- a team Krivsky wants to emulate. How many high-level Free Agents have signed recently despite the Twins' recent history of success? That's the small market reality even for a team that hit the playoffs for three consecutive seasons.

As fans, we tend to perceive "culture" changes differently than unattached observers. Players have agents. Agents advise. The current perception by the general populace, despite protestations to the contrary, is that the Reds are dumb. Even if that turns 180-degrees, the Reds don't project to have enough money to really capitalize on improved perception.

Lacking the capital resources, and the most likely targets are high-reputation, overpaid, below-average performance players. And if you think for a second that I'm not talking about Brad Radke, think again.


You have to make the playoffs first and I think this season has given the Reds a real opportunity to do that. I think a trip to the playoffs and a few intersting off-season moves would significantly increase the season ticket holder base. Cincy wants to support the Reds, they Reds just has to give them a reason to.

I think we disagree on how viable the Reds were before the trade and/or after the trade as far as being playoff contenders. Their current record looks decent, but this is a team that went into the ASB one game over .500. Beating a bad Colorado team is fine, but their pythag was all out of whack to begin with. I liken this team (in essence) to what Washington was doing last year. Pythag darlings produced by a number of late-Inning heroics who just jettisoned offense and still project a negative Run Differential.


Maybe we needed brave at this point. Only time will tell.

I think time is the worst possible variable. Time allows us to justify bad decisions that work out against probability. Time allows us to act as if good risks were bad based on result. Time justifies mistakes and denigrates smart decision-making quite often. Bold, intelligent decisions based on an understanding of probability are always right. Always. They may not work out, but they're always right. It's unfortunate that we evaluate decisions by outcome rather than evaluating whether or not the process leading to the decision was sound.


I know hordes of smart people that are working 60 hour weeks. I also know more than a handful of seemingly less intelligent people (one who had an 8 on his ACTs in HS) that went out on their own, started a business, and are independently wealthy at < 40. Sometimes brave will do. Sometimes you have to take your shot even if its not the smartest thing to do. Buck the odds long enough and you'll lose for sure, but I can't get inline with playing the odds EVERY SINGLE TIME. Sometimes you have to take your shot and I think Krivsky looked at the schedule and noted that if the next 16 games were to slip away the season was pretty much over.

So you've got some smart people who have less vision than some less intelligent (in your opinion) with more vision and, apparantly, more motivation. "Brave" is never a quality that, by itself, will work. I've seen the brave eat dirt all too often when "brave" lacks vision and intelligence. When that happens, it's almost always a scenario in which the "brave" executive simply doesn't possess one of the latter two qualities. I truly believe that Wayne Krivsky has a vision. But I feel that his vision is skewed by what he thinks made the Twins successful. I don't see that he's moved beyond a knowlege base of that with which he feels comfortable.

Our analysis is often (if not always) based on personal experience. And I admire yours. You obviously have the ability to think three-dimensionally or you wouldn't have responded to my post. I believe you have vision. I know you've got intelligence. And it think that you have enough of all three to see past this deal to be able to identify if for what it truly represents based on your knowledge of situational dynamics. I don't need you to be on "my side" (whatever that is). Alliances, after all, suck the life out of intelligent debate.

And I appreciate your challenge of my position. I really do; because it consistently makes me re-think my reasons for hating the deal with the passion of a million burning suns. I wish other folks could actually challenge a position rather than attacking the poster. But, alas, knowing the environment, we'll always see low-level two-dimensional thinkers who truly believe they should drive board philosophy.


I can't really get on board that we know if this was a smart move or not. Baseball is a funny game and not predictable over short stretches of time. If the Cardinals had not floundered so badly as this point I might agree. I wouldn't have made this trade with only the wild-card being a possibility, but the division and wild-card are both still in reach this season.

The Reds are on pace for 85 Ws at this point. The way the wild-card race is shaping up 90 Ws might very well make you the representative for the NL.

One of the reasons I dislike this trade is that the NL is so weak this season. Krivsky's version of "going for it" with one of the two .500 clubs who are competing for the Wild Card reeks of wanting to stay ahead of competition they really weren't ahead of in the first place. The Dodgers and Atlanta are the primary competition for that WC spot based on seasonal performance. The Reds have been pythag-lucky. Those two teams have been pythag-unlucky. You don't improve your pythag luck by negatively impacting your Run Differential.


I fully understand the trade, the return, and the ramifications of this trade failing. I don't mind it.

And I fully understand the trade, the return, and the ramifications of this trade failing. We're obviously not on the same page about anything other than the motivation for the trade. That we can agree on. The rest, IMHO, equates a good-intentioned, low-probability decision that has the potential to completely hamstring the organization. You may see it as two steps forward- one step back. I see it as two steps back- one step forward.


I am not jumping up and down for joy or expecting a playoff birth out of it, but I am expecting we will see some meaningful baseaball into mid-August for a change.

gl, if you're not expecting a playoff spot for the 2006 Reds, then this trade goes down as a huge error in judgment. For that trade to be a plus, the Reds have to acquire a playoff spot this season. It's the only way to justify swappng players for less value than they received.

edabbs44
07-19-2006, 08:08 AM
Interesting take.. Had the Reds traded four mediocre AA talents for Majewski + Bray, I wonder if the perception of the two would be different.

It does seem though that due to the high price paid to get these two guys has people expecting them to be a savior and get us to the playoffs.

If we had given up what relievers historically get traded for at the deadline, would the fan base be more restless for "the big move"? Would some fans be less jazzed at this BP upgrade?
Exactly...these guys should (or maybe could) have been obtained for a lot less. I assume that their price was so high b/c of their ages. I think WK would have been better served getting some mid-30s guys for the stretch run and then went for a complete BP makeover in the off-season.

But if Jerry isn't going to use them anyway, what's the point?:D

RFS62
07-19-2006, 08:33 AM
Our analysis is often (if not always) based on personal experience. And I admire yours. You obviously have the ability to think three-dimensionally or you wouldn't have responded to my post. I believe you have vision. I know you've got intelligence. And it think that you have enough of all three to see past this deal to be able to identify if for what it truly represents based on your knowledge of situational dynamics. I don't need you to be on "my side" (whatever that is). Alliances, after all, suck the life out of intelligent debate.

And I appreciate your challenge of my position. I really do; because it consistently makes me re-think my reasons for hating the deal with the passion of a million burning suns. I wish other folks could actually challenge a position rather than attacking the poster. But, alas, knowing the environment, we'll always see low-level two-dimensional thinkers who truly believe they should drive board philosophy.






Isn't it enough to state your position forcefully and intelligently, as you always do, without that kind of childish drivel?

Two dimensional thinkers need not apply? Anyone who doesn't see things your way is a lesser intellect? What a steaming pile of hubris, in the middle of a good argument.

Is it really necessary to be so insufferable and condescending? Are your points any more salient with the little digs?

smith288
07-19-2006, 09:06 AM
And I completely understand that the motive for the deal. I understand why Krivsky did what he did. I didn't predict the players, but I sure saw the trend a while ago.....

....more comments.......


...more comments......



Steel, love your posts most of the time but that book you wrote probably wasnt read. lol

lollipopcurve
07-19-2006, 09:10 AM
I wish other folks could actually challenge a position rather than attacking the poster. But, alas, knowing the environment, we'll always see low-level two-dimensional thinkers who truly believe they should drive board philosophy.

Heed your own advice much?

REDREAD
07-19-2006, 01:00 PM
Exactly...these guys should (or maybe could) have been obtained for a lot less. I assume that their price was so high b/c of their ages. I think WK would have been better served getting some mid-30s guys for the stretch run and then went for a complete BP makeover in the off-season.

But if Jerry isn't going to use them anyway, what's the point?:D

yeah, that's my take as well. I'd rather have Wayne fishing for more cheap vets like Guarado. This move doesn't really help us win the division, IMO.

I think the fact that the two relievers are young is overvalued. One has already been rode hard with tendonitis, and Bray has all the tools but is an unknown quanity. I'm not saying they will tank, they've got a good shot to do well, but their youth actually makes them a bigger risk.

GAC
07-19-2006, 02:43 PM
Exactly...these guys should (or maybe could) have been obtained for a lot less.

Then I think they would have been then. I think Krivksy's shrewed enough, IMO, not to simply and unnecessarily give players away.


I assume that their price was so high b/c of their ages.

Their price was high because of the extreme scarcity within the market for pitching. When your own DFAs are being snatched up before their butts even hit the ground, then that tells one something about the market, and how hungry teams are right now for pitching of any type to take a chance on.


I think WK would have been better served getting some mid-30s guys for the stretch run and then went for a complete BP makeover in the off-season.

Other than Everyday Eddie from the M's, which I believe Kriv really got a good deal on in that situation, how many of those type deals were really left "in the well"? Was it running dry? And if there were, they were still gonna cost you something.

I'm personally, for the most part, getting tired of those mid-late 30's pick-ups, that generally cost you more because they have some service time in the big leagues, and are proving just as risky.

These young arms we got have little financially invested.... they have a possible upside too... if they bust?... well that is the risk we took (I acknowldege that); but we're not looking at Milton or Jeff Weaver type contracts here.

And while yes, we paid a higher price in the likes of a Lopez and Kearns, those guys, IMO, can be replaced our system (Deno, BP, Freel, Aurilia).

registerthis
07-19-2006, 02:49 PM
Then I think they would have been then. I think Krivksy's shrewed enough, IMO, not to simply and unnecessarily give players away.

Perhaps that is the case, because I suspect that Krivsky didn't set out to obtain the lowest possible return for his investment.

But I will say this: I--and others, I'm certain--feel that even if this WAS the going price for pitching, then krivsky would have better off standing pat and waiting until the offseason to make moves, or to pursue less-expensive talent now. Yes, the bullpen has been improved, maybe the price Krivsky paid was the going rate...but, no, krivsky didn't have to make the deal.

I remember many, many posters on this Board, prior to the trade, who stated that they would be fine with Krivsky attempting to acquire talent so long as he didn't overpay and didn't dismantle the team in the process. And while losing kearns and Lopez doesn't dismantle the team, it certainly puts a dent in it, and I think that--regardless of market rates--practically everyone admits that, on a talent-to-talent analysis, the Reds didn't come out ahead in this deal. This deal is almost the dictionary definition of the type of trade I had hoped Krivsky would avoid making.

Marc D
07-19-2006, 03:08 PM
Perhaps that is the case, because I suspect that Krivsky didn't set out to obtain the lowest possible return for his investment.

But I will say this: I--and others, I'm certain--feel that even if this WAS the going price for pitching, then krivsky would have better off standing pat and waiting until the offseason to make moves, or to pursue less-expensive talent now. Yes, the bullpen has been improved, maybe the price Krivsky paid was the going rate...but, no, krivsky didn't have to make the deal.

I remember many, many posters on this Board, prior to the trade, who stated that they would be fine with Krivsky attempting to acquire talent so long as he didn't overpay and didn't dismantle the team in the process. And while losing kearns and Lopez doesn't dismantle the team, it certainly puts a dent in it, and I think that--regardless of market rates--practically everyone admits that, on a talent-to-talent analysis, the Reds didn't come out ahead in this deal. This deal is almost the dictionary definition of the type of trade I had hoped Krivsky would avoid making.


Perfect summation of my view and probably of most who are/were opposed to this trade.

edabbs44
07-19-2006, 03:39 PM
Then I think they would have been then. I think Krivksy's shrewed enough, IMO, not to simply and unnecessarily give players away.



Their price was high because of the extreme scarcity within the market for pitching. When your own DFAs are being snatched up before their butts even hit the ground, then that tells one something about the market, and how hungry teams are right now for pitching of any type to take a chance on.



Other than Everyday Eddie from the M's, which I believe Kriv really got a good deal on in that situation, how many of those type deals were really left "in the well"? Was it running dry? And if there were, they were still gonna cost you something.

I'm personally, for the most part, getting tired of those mid-late 30's pick-ups, that generally cost you more because they have some service time in the big leagues, and are proving just as risky.

These young arms we got have little financially invested.... they have a possible upside too... if they bust?... well that is the risk we took (I acknowldege that); but we're not looking at Milton or Jeff Weaver type contracts here.

And while yes, we paid a higher price in the likes of a Lopez and Kearns, those guys, IMO, can be replaced our system (Deno, BP, Freel, Aurilia).
I'm just trying to be a realist and say that this isn't the type of deal that wins a championship. And next year, we might be complaining b/c there are a multitude of arms available and the offense needs upgrading. The BP was flat out ignored this off season and if one or two legitimate arms were actually pursued, this trade would have been somewhat unnecessary. It was almost like they sat by the side of the table and waited to see what scraps fell to the floor.

You ask "If they bust?" If they bust, this would be a disaster. Flat out. Sure it wouldn't be a Milton type disaster, but it would hurt more in some respects since Milton cost money and these guys cost established players. And it won't be an even swap of Kearns for Freel and Deno. Freel's history has shown he is better when he isn;t full-time and Deno is uncharted territory. I think the guy deserved a chance, but he might end up belly-up. He would have been PERFECT trade bait. Just out of curiosity, would you have rather had someone like Borowski and Kearns or Deno and Majewski?

As I have said before, the next two weeks will close the book on this trade. If you see name prospects or young established players being dealt for BP help, then it will look like WK did better than some of us thought. But if you see pitchers like Eyre, Borowski, R Hernandez, Marte and Howry being dealt for mid-tier minor leaguers, this might look a lot worse and would show that WK got nervous.

Ltlabner
07-19-2006, 04:50 PM
As I have said before, the next two weeks will close the book on this trade. If you see name prospects or young established players being dealt for BP help, then it will look like WK did better than some of us thought. But if you see pitchers like Eyre, Borowski, R Hernandez, Marte and Howry being dealt for mid-tier minor leaguers, this might look a lot worse and would show that WK got nervous.

Bingo. I agree totally.


Their price was high because of the extreme scarcity within the market for pitching. When your own DFAs are being snatched up before their butts even hit the ground, then that tells one something about the market, and how hungry teams are right now for pitching of any type to take a chance on.

Dead on! When Sidney Ponsone is snached up by the Yankees, who can most assurdly afford to pay just about anything for pitching tallent, it tells you something about the scaricity of solid bullpen arms.


The BP was flat out ignored this off season and if one or two legitimate arms were actually pursued, this trade would have been somewhat unnecessary. It was almost like they sat by the side of the table and waited to see what scraps fell to the floor.

Keep in mind that BC and Kriv didn't take over the team until the very end of the offseason. It was Linder and DanO who did nothing all season but pick their noses. Everybody say "thanks DanO".

Rojo
07-19-2006, 04:51 PM
Steel, love your posts most of the time but that book you wrote probably wasnt read. lol

I know I didn't. I'm pushing 40, I just skip online manifestos.

edabbs44
07-19-2006, 05:14 PM
Keep in mind that BC and Kriv didn't take over the team until the very end of the offseason. It was Linder and DanO who did nothing all season but pick their noses. Everybody say "thanks DanO".
Oh, I know. But I am looking at this upcoming offseason, thinking that this problem could have be fixed then. If WK thinks that this will bring playoff baseball to Cincy this season, then that it is his opinion.

But if the playoffs don't happen, this will get worse. But at least he's trying, I guess.

registerthis
07-19-2006, 06:25 PM
As I have said before, the next two weeks will close the book on this trade.

I don't understand this thinking at all. So, if you see some other teams overpaying for middle relief pitchers it will somehow mean that this was the right move to make? Sorry, I'm not buying that logic.

If the Reds somehow make the playoffs this year, and if the additions of Bray and Majewski turn this BP around, and if they both remain effective pitchers in our pen for some time, then I might consider this trade acceptable.

However, Kearns could go on to have a few of those .300-30-90 seasons we're always hearing he's capable of, Lopez could switch to second and become a consistent performer there--on both offense and defense--and Majewski and Bray could end up being nothing but a pair of middling relievers who have an unceremonious couple of seasons with the club and are then dealt elsewhere. Those are things we won't know for years down the road.

This trade will be judged in the long term, not in the next two weeks. Other teams overpaying for pitching only confirms our suspicions that the price for pitching was high, but it doesn't mean that this was the right trade to make.

Ravenlord
07-19-2006, 06:28 PM
i find it amazing this thread has 900+ replies and 25,000+ views.....

ochre
07-19-2006, 07:47 PM
i find it amazing this thread has 900+ replies and 25,000+ views.....
You should know better than to put stock in counting stats...

edabbs44
07-19-2006, 07:58 PM
I don't understand this thinking at all. So, if you see some other teams overpaying for middle relief pitchers it will somehow mean that this was the right move to make? Sorry, I'm not buying that logic.

If the Reds somehow make the playoffs this year, and if the additions of Bray and Majewski turn this BP around, and if they both remain effective pitchers in our pen for some time, then I might consider this trade acceptable.

However, Kearns could go on to have a few of those .300-30-90 seasons we're always hearing he's capable of, Lopez could switch to second and become a consistent performer there--on both offense and defense--and Majewski and Bray could end up being nothing but a pair of middling relievers who have an unceremonious couple of seasons with the club and are then dealt elsewhere. Those are things we won't know for years down the road.

This trade will be judged in the long term, not in the next two weeks. Other teams overpaying for pitching only confirms our suspicions that the price for pitching was high, but it doesn't mean that this was the right trade to make.
I agree with your logic, but I was only looking at the overpayment by WK. It is another conversation altogether whether he should have made the trade or not.

Ravenlord
07-19-2006, 08:02 PM
You should know better than to put stock in counting stats...
i do. the thread started with a 900ish OPS, but the last few pages have been Juan Castro like.:p:

KronoRed
07-19-2006, 08:32 PM
i do. the thread started with a 900ish OPS, but the last few pages have been Juan Castro like.:p:
Thread needs a rest, but we don't have an Aurilia thread ready to step in..scrappy like

IslandRed
07-19-2006, 10:09 PM
I remember many, many posters on this Board, prior to the trade, who stated that they would be fine with Krivsky attempting to acquire talent so long as he didn't overpay and didn't dismantle the team in the process. And while losing kearns and Lopez doesn't dismantle the team, it certainly puts a dent in it, and I think that--regardless of market rates--practically everyone admits that, on a talent-to-talent analysis, the Reds didn't come out ahead in this deal. This deal is almost the dictionary definition of the type of trade I had hoped Krivsky would avoid making.

Nice post.

More than anything, I think it's the divergence of opinions on what Kearns and Lopez are going to be in the future that drives the opinions about the trade. And I believe one of those divergences is in Wayne Krivsky's office. I really think that if he shared the conventional wisdom about those ballplayers' future worth, be it the writers who focus on names or the statheads (like me) looking at PECOTA projections, this deal isn't made. There have been plenty of reasons and speculations why, so I'm not going to rehash them, but I'm guessing WK thought they were less essential parts to future Reds teams than most of us did. Is he right? I don't know. But that's his job, to evaluate ballplayers and act on what he believes.

But even if I trust Krivsky in terms of his prescience about ballplayers -- was that the best we could do? I usually play that card when we're kicking around trades -- if Player A goes on the market, is such-and-so offer the best they could do? I think that one is highly debatable, and is a contributing factor to the skepticism. Even if we had to have bullpen help at all costs and even if Krivsky's right about Kearns and Lopez, surely we could have done better, goes the logic. But then, I don't know how long he left the bait in the water. Again, I just have to hope he knows something we don't.

GAC
07-20-2006, 05:26 AM
Perhaps that is the case, because I suspect that Krivsky didn't set out to obtain the lowest possible return for his investment.

But I will say this: I--and others, I'm certain--feel that even if this WAS the going price for pitching, then krivsky would have better off standing pat and waiting until the offseason to make moves,

And I've stated that very same position on here several times reg - that this may be a problem that can't be fixed until the off-season.

No one denies that the demand of the current market is gonna cost most teams searching for pitching help......... Milton's value is probably about as high as it could be RIGHT NOW! :lol:

But sadly enough, and with Claussen on the DL still, we can't even afford to let a Milton go. But man, it would be tempting if we could get a good return. ;)


Yes, the bullpen has been improved, maybe the price Krivsky paid was the going rate...but, no, krivsky didn't have to make the deal.

You're right. He didn't have to do anything. But with the fans screaming "Fix this bullpen Wayne, we have a shot this year if you do!" - would they have been as understanding if he had come out and explained that the market demand for pitching is too high, and therefore we are gonna "sit on our hands" and play it out with what we got?

Knowing most Red fans - I think they would have been upset.

I've come to realize that the people on this forum, when it comes to the knowledge of the game of baseball, are far more "into it" or knowledgeable then the casual fan (which comprises the majority of the Red's fanbase).

Yes - we would probably understand. But the majority of the fanbase probably wouldn't have. Just my opinion.


I remember many, many posters on this Board, prior to the trade, who stated that they would be fine with Krivsky attempting to acquire talent so long as he didn't overpay and didn't dismantle the team in the process. And while losing kearns and Lopez doesn't dismantle the team, it certainly puts a dent in it, and I think that--regardless of market rates--practically everyone admits that, on a talent-to-talent analysis, the Reds didn't come out ahead in this deal. This deal is almost the dictionary definition of the type of trade I had hoped Krivsky would avoid making.

That's why I haven't really issued a "grade" to this trade. I, and most, don't know how it's really gonna turn out. And I really don't think that Krivsky is done. But the loss of Lopez and Kearns, IMO, sure hasn't dismantled this team. They were slightly above average players. And the guys replacing Lopez are below average from an offensive standpoint. But if this management moves the right players already in this organization (position-wise) - and utilizes Freel more, now that he's back after the shoulder problem - along with the right move or two in the near future (including the off-season).... then this team may not be in such a bad position in the near future.

But overall - I really like what Castellini/Krivsky have done. In just a short order they've moved this team in the right direction and given us all hope.

It's great to see what this team is doing in '06. But my thinking is more long term.

michst
07-20-2006, 09:26 AM
Kearns is struggling and they are starting to write about it. Kinda sad, sounds like he is having a hard time there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901257.html

smith288
07-20-2006, 10:03 AM
Kearns is struggling and they are starting to write about it. Kinda sad, sounds like he is having a hard time there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901257.html
Doesnt help that Dunn opened his trap about being miserable every single day.

Fans and media are gonna be on Kearns like stank on shat.

redsmetz
07-20-2006, 10:05 AM
I picked up a copy of this week's City Beat and Bill Peterson addressed the trade in his sports column. I liked the Jerry Dowling cartoon that accompanied it (shown below).


Reds' Trade Just a Part of the Plan (If the Plan Is to Win)

By Bill Peterson

Three years later, the torch is finally passed. In the course of an eight-player trade with the Washington Nationals on July 13, Reds General Manager Wayne Krivsky gave the Jim Bowden Reds back to Jim Bowden, the latest in a sweeping set of changes to establish Krivsky's vision of baseball in Cincinnati.
The Reds gave up two big bats -- right fielder Austin Kearns and shortstop Felipe Lopez -- along with forgotten relief pitcher Ryan Wagner. In exchange, Krivsky brought to the Reds a mostly anonymous set of parts, including relievers Gary Majewski and Bill Bray, infielders Royce Clayton and Brendan Harris and minor league pitcher Daryl Thompson.

While fireworks went off in the nation's capital, restraint prevailed among the Reds fandom. So lopsided is this trade against the Reds from a present-day value standpoint that one could hear the words "salary dump" in the wind, even though Krivsky addressed an aching need for relief pitchers. Only the trade market through the rest of July will tell us if Krivsky overpaid for them.

Baseball initiates across the nation, hypnotized as they are by familiar names, believe the trade ratifies the previous Reds ownership's prohibition against dealing with Bowden. In other words, the consensus decided that Bowden robbed his former club blind. But that's not obvious to those who actually watch the Reds.

Among the trade's numerous possible motives, we shouldn't include the notion that it's a bold move by the Reds to win now and take a chance with the postseason in sight. Krivsky didn't trade top prospects for a superstar in his walk year. He merely made one more in a series of maneuvers to orient the Reds toward a less bombastic and more trustworthy style of baseball.

To the extent that it helps the Reds win now, it's only because Krivsky's preference for pitching and defense is more perspicuous than Bowden's fixation on hitters. As baseball so often has shown us, little improvements in pitching and defense trump little improvements in hitting, because good hitting is less consistently rewarded.

You're not trading for Majewski, Bray, Clayton, Harris and Thompson if "win now" is your only motive or even your main motive, because they won't take you to the top. Krivsky, who inherited a ball club diametrically opposed to his philosophical ideas about the game, simply moved to simultaneously improve the bullpen, upgrade the defense at shortstop, probably remove a net 150 strikeouts from the batting order, clear the way for a prospect to play right field and likely save the club $10 million when Kearns and Lopez wind through arbitration next February.

The trade cost the Reds nothing more than batting production, of which they still have plenty enough.

Based on this trade, the Reds will not stand accused of over-valuing their players. Lopez is a good hitter for a shortstop but a poor fielder for a shortstop.

Really, Lopez hits well enough to play only shortstop, second base or catcher. If he played any other position, you would expect to upgrade offensively. Add it up, and he simply isn't a solid everyday player.

At 36, Clayton has seen better days, but he's still a defensive upgrade at shortstop.

It's tougher to see Kearns go. He's 26 and finally turning into the player the Reds expected when they took him with their first round pick in 1998.

Maybe the Reds could have brought a better return for Kearns, but that's the only isolable aspect of this trade that raises a discerning eyebrow. It could be that the key player in this deal is Chris Denorfia, the rookie right fielder who batted .347 at Louisville and now receives his chance with Kearns departed. If Denorfia is the player his minor league record says he is, he gives the Reds more of their Ryan Freel dimension, which is much needed because Freel can't provide that dimension every day.

From reading the blog boards populated by stat fiends, one would think Krivsky shot his mother or traded Jesus and Mohammed for the Three Stooges. The stat fiends often talk as if acquiring middle relief should be a painless proposition for an efficient organization. And they're right when they object to paying millions for a veteran dish rag when a young dish rag is just as raggedy, much cheaper and might eventually amount to something.

Still, since quality pitching exceeds supply and clubs put their best pitchers in the starting rotation and closing relief, quality middle relievers tend to be rare. And so the club that makes an intelligent commitment to middle relief will benefit.

The importance of middle relief is illustrated in the course of almost any baseball game, for it quite often happens that the most important at-bat, the definitive game situation, comes up in the sixth or seventh inning, when the game usually is in the hands of a middle reliever. If you've got a two-run lead and the other club is batting with two on, two out and Albert Pujols on deck, you need to get this out. If Pujols comes up this inning, then you go from managing the last two innings from ahead to managing them from behind.

To those who believe Krivsky gave up too much for middle relievers Majewski and Bray, don't be so surprised that Krivsky made this kind of move.

As mentioned here during the spring (see "Pitching? Check," issue of April 5), Krivsky will err on the side of pitching rather than hitting. If he errs with this trade, it's the right kind of error and, if you agree with him on the fundamentals of a baseball club, you hope he's persistent. After all, he's not going to be right every time, but he's also not going to be right often enough unless he tries often enough.

Regardless of the religious arguments, it remains that the Reds bullpen desperately needed a makeover. On the day of the trade, the Cincinnati bullpen ERA sat at 5.21, the very worst in the major leagues, nearly a run worse than the average major league bullpen ERA of 4.28.

Last week's trade, along with the acquisition of Eddie Guardado a week earlier, ought to fix that. If it also tightens up the infield defense while pushing the offense toward "little ball" strategies, that's all part of the plan.

The plan ends with winning. But not necessarily now.


http://www.citybeat.com/current/sports-1.jpg

Bob Borkowski
07-20-2006, 10:44 AM
Hey, I have always appreciated Jerry Dowling's work, starting back in the early 70's. I had no idea he still cranked out baseball cartoons.

Is there somewhere I can find some of his current stuff?

redsmetz
07-20-2006, 11:00 AM
Hey, I have always appreciated Jerry Dowling's work, starting back in the early 70's. I had no idea he still cranked out baseball cartoons.

Is there somewhere I can find some of his current stuff?

He's in City Beat every week, almost always an illustration accompanying Peterson's column, but also doing the general editorial cartoon. If you go to www.citybeat.com and type in "Jerry Dowling" in the search, it will give you links to individual ones. Does anyone carry City Beat down in Aurora? [Of course, it should not be left around for young children to peruse]

pedro
07-20-2006, 11:38 AM
Really, Lopez hits well enough to play only shortstop, second base or catcher. If he played any other position, you would expect to upgrade offensively. Add it up, and he simply isn't a solid everyday player.


that's exactly what I've been saying.

Benihana
07-20-2006, 08:57 PM
redsmetz, that column is hands down the best explanation I've seen behind the trade rationale thus far. Kudos for finding the article. Great work by Dowling- I couldn't agree more, and he doesn't even touch on Kearns' alleged attitude problems (and how they may or may not affect Adam Dunn).

Aronchis
07-22-2006, 12:03 AM
Say the deal had been just Kearns/Wagner for Brey,Maj,Harris and Thompson?

You know what, that deal doesn't bother me a whole lot. Kearns(Wagner) have some major issues and the Reds get some bullpen arms young with enough upside that make me believe they could be good cogs for the next couple of years and some throw ins.

But we essentially swapped Lopez for Clayton. That is a poor job. Maybe Krivsky's real first poor job on a trade. Lopez is a REALLY streaky hitter. He can light it up at one moment, the next a nuclear winter. Maybe he is just having a ho hum year, with a better chance of rebound next year. Krivsky simply had to get something better for Felipe, even if he didn't believe the guy was part of our future due to subpar defense. He simply had to. Mercy Wayne.

TeamBoone
07-22-2006, 01:30 AM
They both did pretty well in the Nats win tonight:

Kearns 1-2 with 2 walks
Lopez 1-4 with 1 RBI

traderumor
07-22-2006, 08:18 PM
Say the deal had been just Kearns/Wagner for Brey,Maj,Harris and Thompson?

You know what, that deal doesn't bother me a whole lot. Kearns(Wagner) have some major issues and the Reds get some bullpen arms young with enough upside that make me believe they could be good cogs for the next couple of years and some throw ins.

But we essentially swapped Lopez for Clayton. That is a poor job. Maybe Krivsky's real first poor job on a trade. Lopez is a REALLY streaky hitter. He can light it up at one moment, the next a nuclear winter. Maybe he is just having a ho hum year, with a better chance of rebound next year. Krivsky simply had to get something better for Felipe, even if he didn't believe the guy was part of our future due to subpar defense. He simply had to. Mercy Wayne.
But you can't break down a multi-player deal in this manner. I could just as easily say that the deal is Wagner (throw-in) for Clayton, Harris and Thompson (throw-ins), while Kearns and Lopez (major leaguers) were dealt for Majewski and Bray (major leaguers). Or we could make some other arbitrary split of which player was dealt for the other.

pedro
07-22-2006, 08:20 PM
Say the deal had been just Kearns/Wagner for Brey,Maj,Harris and Thompson?

You know what, that deal doesn't bother me a whole lot. Kearns(Wagner) have some major issues and the Reds get some bullpen arms young with enough upside that make me believe they could be good cogs for the next couple of years and some throw ins.

But we essentially swapped Lopez for Clayton. That is a poor job. Maybe Krivsky's real first poor job on a trade. Lopez is a REALLY streaky hitter. He can light it up at one moment, the next a nuclear winter. Maybe he is just having a ho hum year, with a better chance of rebound next year. Krivsky simply had to get something better for Felipe, even if he didn't believe the guy was part of our future due to subpar defense. He simply had to. Mercy Wayne.

kearns isn't worth all those guys.

TOBTTReds
07-22-2006, 11:39 PM
Say the deal had been just Kearns/Wagner for Brey,Maj,Harris and Thompson?


So you are saying Lopez for Royce Clayton straight up was part of the deal? Shame on WK if that is the case.

RedlegJake
07-23-2006, 12:34 AM
I have one thought. It isn't one trade that makes a GM but the body of his work. Arroyo, Phillips, Ross, Guardado, several dfa's of players that weren't producing,Bray/Majewski/Thomson/Harris/Clayton, Krivsky is quickly and surely putting his own stamp on this team decisively and boldly. Personally I suspect this trade will tilt in the Nats favor long term but not as acutely as some have ranted. I'm not going to indict Krivsky on any one trade but how his overall maneuvering affects the Reds chances. So far, I have to grade him pretty highly. Joe Mays is his biggest misjudgement but easy to fix. Other small but important things like keeping Jason Standridge - seeing his ability when it wouldn't have raised any eyebrows to just cut him outright tell me Krivsky knows talent. Give him a bit of time and a bit of leeway. The Reds finally FINALLY have a real baseball oriented owner and a GM who knows what he is about. This season has been fun, unexpected and I'm so looking forward to the next few years!

Aronchis
07-23-2006, 12:44 AM
kearns isn't worth all those guys.

Exactly, which is why Bowden wanted Lopez, but Felipe turns the value the otherway when you include him over someone else with less value but made a square deal. Krivsky was so desperate and cared for Lopez's defense so little, he just threw him in IMO. His weak moment as GM thus far.

CrackerJack
07-23-2006, 12:45 AM
That article highlights the reason Kearns was so tradeable in the first place - spoiled, soft, whiny, and not very motivated.

Maybe he can meet David Klinger for lunch in his pick-up next week.

Marc D
07-23-2006, 04:13 PM
Just a little over a week to go before the trade deadline. If Krivsky can't upgrade the #5 spot then this trade will look even worse this off season(and thats saying something as far as I'm concerned).

traderumor
07-23-2006, 05:08 PM
Exactly, which is why Bowden wanted Lopez, but Felipe turns the value the otherway when you include him over someone else with less value but made a square deal. Krivsky was so desperate and cared for Lopez's defense so little, he just threw him in IMO. His weak moment as GM thus far.Adding an arm and a leg to that strawman now?