PDA

View Full Version : Analysis and Outlook on Majewski, Bray, Harris and Clayton



Cyclone792
07-13-2006, 07:19 PM
I posted much of this in the trade thread, but it got lost in the whirlwind of a dozen different discussions occuring simultaneously.

Anyhow, regardless of how we feel about the trade itself and whether or not we feel justified that the return was enough, let's ignore that for a second here and try to grasp what we did receive in talent and whether or not the future outlook for this package is promising or dismal in any way, shape or form. I'll leave Daryl Thompson out of this since he's in the low minors, but the other four players may very well see action on the big club this season and in the future so here's a quick'n dirty look at the talent we just brought in this afternoon.

*Minor League statistics for Bray and Harris include their 2006 stats

Gary Majewski: 26-years-old


Lifetime K/9 ....... 5.32
Lifetime BB/9 ...... 3.71
Lifetime HR/9 ...... 0.44
Lifetime K/BB ...... 1.43

Lifetime DIPS ERA .. 3.92
Lifetime ERA ....... 3.27

Lifetime BABIP ..... .292

Road HR/9 .......... 0.54
Road DIPS ERA ...... 3.88

Basically we're getting a guy in Majewski who's been maybe slightly BABIP hit lucky, doesn't strike many guys out at all, walks too many guys, but has the uncanny ability to keep the ball in the yard.

Key question for Majewski: How will his HR/9 rate fare once pitching half his games in GABP? His road HR/9 rate, while a small sample in only 83 innings, does look promising so hopefully the spike up in home runs allowed for Majewski is minimal.

Still, if this guy starts serving up the long ball, he could start getting torched real quick. If Majewski can continue his success in keeping the ball in the yard, he should have some success, though our poor defense may shine through and bump his ERA up close to his DIPS ERA level.

Bill Bray: Just turned 23-years-old


Lifetime K/9 ....... 6.26
Lifetime BB/9 ...... 3.52
Lifetime HR/9 ...... 0.78
Lifetime K/BB ...... 1.78

Lifetime DIPS ERA .. 4.09
Lifetime ERA ....... 3.91

Lifetime BABIP ..... .310

Minors K/9 ........ 11.44
Minors BB/9 ........ 2.63
Minors HR/9 ........ 1.14
Minors K/BB ........ 4.35

Based purely off statistics, Bray's a solid prospect lefty out of the pen. I'd like to see him carry his solid minor league K/9 rate up to the majors, but time will tell if he's able to accomplish that. His home run rate in the minors may be a tad worrisome as the combination of major league hitters + GABP could send that figure spiking higher than merely one bomb per nine innings.

The good news for Bray is he's a young 23-years-old and he's already reached the majors. Hopefully development will continue for him over the next few seasons and we may have a solid, young reliever on our hands if he's able to carry his high K/9 rate onto the big club.

Brendan Harris: 25-years-old (26 in August, 2006)


Minors BA ....... .293
Minors OBP ...... .361
Minors SLG ...... .465
Minors OPS ...... .826

Minors PA/BB .... 11.45
Minors PA/HR .... 39.58
Minors PA/2B .... 16.56

Minors SB/CS .... 40/23

Minor league projections over 600 PAs ... 30-35 doubles, 50 walks and 15 home runs.

Harris' plate discipline in the minors wasn't abysmal, but it's not looking promising that he'll be able to draw walks with a great frequency at the big league level. That could pose serious problems since he could very well become an out machine without the ability to hit for much power. He looks to be primarily a singles and doubles hitter, and the key questions for Harris are how many walks will he take at the major league level, and how good is his defense. If both questions provide good news for the Reds, he could be a useful player for us. If one is lacking, then he could become a source of frustation for fans.

Royce Clayton: Old Veteran

Royce Clayton - who according to Jerry Narron really knows how to play the game the right way - is simply a veteran trash heap. Offensively, he's a lifetime .682 OPS (wow, that's bad). I wouldn't expect anything better than that out of Clayton while in a Reds uniform, and honestly if he's able to somehow give us an OPS over .700 we should consider ourselves fortunate.

How about defensively? Clayton is rumored to be a slick glove guy, but I'm not seeing any evidence supporting that assertion anymore. Defensively, here were the bottom eight shortstops in PMR for 2005:


Runs Above Average
Original Alternative

Derek Jeter -13.2134 -14.3688
Russ M Adams -13.4525 -13.4673
Royce Clayton -13.8171 -18.4288
Jhonny Peralta -15.0402 -14.8627
Felipe Lopez -18.5375 -21.2106
Angel Berroa -18.5556 -10.7785
Michael Young -19.2755 -17.3725
Jose Reyes -22.9404 -25.8656

Royce Clayton was a very good defensive shortstop from 1994-2003. In 2004, however, he had -10 fielding runs above average. In 2005, he had -3 fielding runs above average. In 2006, he has -6 fielding runs above average so far.

Whoever in the Reds organization is telling us that Royce Clayton is an outstanding defensive player is living in the past. Age has seemingly caught up to Clayton, and what was once a very good defensive shortstop is now below average.

Johnny Footstool
07-13-2006, 07:38 PM
I like Bray. His K/9 in the minors indicate he could very well be a future closer. A-minus.

Majewski is midrange talent. Nothing to be excited about. B-minus.

Harris reminds me of Tim Hummel. Hooray. C.

Clayton will pair with Castro to form the prototypical no-offense, all-hype-defense SS combo by which all future old shortstops with no bat and no range will be compared to. F-minus.

Ltlabner
07-13-2006, 07:44 PM
This is very subjective, however, I think just the presence of three new arms in the bullpen will have a positive effect in the short term on the defense. I'm convinced that after the bullpen collapsed that the defense would tense up whenever the bullpen came in. It seemed that latley once White, Hammond, Merker, Weathers et al took the mound then we'd see all the mental errors and mistakes happening.

I think having some new blood might help the defense to relax and just play ball instead of fealing like they had to make all star plays all the time because the bullpen was going to be a disaster.

Of course, if these guys fall apart too it will be a short lived benefit.

RFS62
07-13-2006, 08:08 PM
Great job, Cyclone, as usual.

Thanks for not making me read that whole freakin' trade thread.

flyer85
07-13-2006, 08:13 PM
I think the Reds would be better off turning SS over to Olmedo rather than Clayton.

RFS62
07-13-2006, 08:14 PM
I think the Reds would be better off turning SS over to Olmedo rather than Clayton.




Clayton is a passing ship in the night.

pedro
07-13-2006, 08:18 PM
I think the Reds would be better off turning SS over to Olmedo rather than Clayton.

Olmedo isn't a very good defensive SS IMO.

westofyou
07-13-2006, 08:23 PM
Clayton is a passing ship in the night.
He's Woody Woodward to Castro's Darrel Chaney

Transition year

redsmetz
07-13-2006, 08:25 PM
Clayton is a passing ship in the night.

I said before we all crashed Redzone that I think Clayton is merely a stopgap. At 36, his best is behind me, but there may be a little something in the tank.

flyer85
07-13-2006, 08:25 PM
Olmedo isn't a very good defensive SS IMO.he has a bunch more range than Clayton/Lopez

Clayton only has 3 less errors (14-11) than Lopez.

Interesting also that for WK to come out looking good Denorfia has to play well because the dealing of Kearns was predicated on Denorfia being ready to produce in the majors.

pedro
07-13-2006, 08:37 PM
he has a bunch more range than Clayton/Lopez

Clayton only has 3 less errors (14-11) than Lopez.

Interesting also that for WK to come out looking good Denorfia has to play well because the dealing of Kearns was predicated on Denorfia being ready to produce in the majors.

maybe, but from what I remember, he was also a lot of flash and very little substance. I also refuse to believe he'll hit, depsite his success this year at AAA.

Your right about Denorfia though, if he tanks it will be bad bad bad.

WMR
07-13-2006, 08:43 PM
I wish they'd go ahead and move Phillips to SS and let Freel and whomever platoon 2nd.

Nugget
07-13-2006, 08:58 PM
Just so we can see how good statistics are for judging a trade could someone post the pretrade stats for Phillips and Ross.

flyer85
07-13-2006, 09:17 PM
Just so we can see how good statistics are for judging a trade could someone post the pretrade stats for Phillips and Ross.The Reds didn't give up anything to acquire either one of those guys.

reds44
07-13-2006, 10:43 PM
Bray is only 23?

Wow I didn't know that!

With Majewski only being 26, hopefully they can anchor down the bullpen for years to come.

WMR
07-13-2006, 11:00 PM
Can someone give a report of their actual "stuff"?

Like what speeds they can throw, their best pitches, etc. etc.?

flyer85
07-13-2006, 11:04 PM
Can someone give a report of their actual "stuff"?

Like what speeds they can throw, their best pitches, etc. etc.?Majewski is a sinker/slider pitcher with the fastball coming in 93-94 range. He is an extreme GB pitcher who is stingy in giving up HRs.

Bray has a funky delivery and a good fastball(91-94) with an excellent slider effective against RH and LH pitchers.

They should be an upgrade, just how much remains to be seen

Marc D
07-13-2006, 11:04 PM
Bray is only 23?

Wow I didn't know that!

With Majewski only being 26, hopefully they can anchor down the bullpen for years to come.

If they don't this trade will be looked back on as Bowden performing an act similar to a colonoscopy on Kriv.

boobhat
07-13-2006, 11:27 PM
I like Bray. His K/9 in the minors indicate he could very well be a future closer. A-minus.

Majewski is midrange talent. Nothing to be excited about. B-minus.

Harris reminds me of Tim Hummel. Hooray. C.

Clayton will pair with Castro to form the prototypical no-offense, all-hype-defense SS combo by which all future old shortstops with no bat and no range will be compared to. F-minus.

tim hummel, sweet

RedsMan3203
07-14-2006, 12:05 AM
Me and a friend got talking about this trade on a fourm board.. and this is what went down...



The trade still leaves a void at SS for the Reds. Clayton is a FA at the end of the year and is at the twilight of his career. There isn't much upside to his game, other than having a decent glove. Not GREAT, but decent glove.

Brandon Phillips will be at shortstop by next spring... They just aint going to move him in the middle of the season... They'll have him play winter/fall ball at short and spring there also... He'll be our full time SS next year.

Least I hope BP is at SS next year




Majewski won't be anything special. He will be solid, but will never be a team ace by any stretch. He will give you about a 4.00 ERA year-in and year-out. Nothing great, but I guess it is a better option in the pen than they had.


Majewski, is in his 2 year and 26 years old. In 79 games last year he posted an ERA under 3. He had 50K's in 86 innings pitched. Majewski has a power fastball that tops out about 94 mph with downwoard action... A power fastball pitcher... He also has a good hard slider to throw at you.




Bray ... honestly I don't know anything about him other than looking at the stats. Putting up 3.91 ERA and 1.43 WHIP in a pitcher's park in Washington doesn't impress me much ... now inflat those numbers to match GAB ... yikes ... he could make Sidney Ponson's look good!!! He is supposed to be really good, but his stint in the bigs this year hasn't shown much.


Bray, to be honest i know nothing about him.. all cept he is a kid (23 years old) Wayne K had high thoughts of him though. The kid is left handed and has a fastball that tops out at 94 mph. Wayne also said most of pitches are at the 90-94 mph range... Once again he has a good slider to go along with his fastball... He can pitch to both right and left handed hitters. From his minor league stats it looks like he been giving up about a hit an inning and striking out 1 per inning. ANd only allowed 5 home runs in 47 innings pitched.

He was a 1st round draft pick in 04.




So, I am not sure what you have been reading that has gotten your hopes up on the deal, but I still don't see anything that is extremely positive in the way of the Reds.



I'm not getting my hopes up, i just see a soild trade... To this day I believe Austin Kearns had his highest value... He is injury prone.. He is going into his 5th full year as a Red in the majors and he hasn't completed a year... He played in 112 games in 2005... He highest total of his carrer... I'd say ship him while his stock is high.

Lopez on the other hand is different.... I don't think there was a chance in the world that the Reds could of signed him after next year.... He is a young talented shortstop with a good offensive upside to him.. He can hit, Hit with power, and can steal bases... But his defense leaves something to desire.... So after coming off his best year as a pro baseball player.. again, his stock was high... trade him while you can cuz you know Boras would ask for an arm in a leg.


Clayton is gone after next year anyways...

Brendan Harris, is a Ryan Freel type of player... Scrappy... Plays all out... I don't know if he'll find anytime on the big club or not.

Now, Daryl Thompson.... Has a ton of upside.... He is 20 year old pitcher... Drafted out of high school... Doc Hollywood did a sugrey on him 2 years ago and he has been doing excellent snice then... All the reports i've heard from the Reds Org that Thompson comes in to the farm system and goes into the top 5 beest prospects we have in the system.


So, why not trade 2 younger players who are at the highest value they'll probably get and get in return 2 bullpen arms that will help now, and a prospect that will help in the future.. Along with helping with the defense.



The stuff I said is in bold

marcshoe
07-14-2006, 12:06 AM
When I read the title of this thread, my first thought was, "I though the other guy's name was Thomspson, not Clayton."

I seem to have put Royce Clayton completely out of my mind.

When I stop and think about it, every time I've seen him in my game the past few years, I've thought, "Huh? Is he still around?"

Oh well.

As to the others, Bray looks very interesting, and Majewski seems solid. Thompson's the wild card, I guess. Harris is hit-or-miss, I think, but doesn't seem to have much of a ceiling.How this trade rates in the long run may depend on whether he pans out.

OTOH, an improved bullpen leading this team into the playoffs would also be an opinion maker.

REDREAD
07-14-2006, 08:57 AM
If they don't this trade will be looked back on as Bowden performing an act similar to a colonoscopy on Kriv.

:laugh: As I said on other threads, even in a best case scenerio, the Reds are probably coming out on the short end of the stick.

cumberlandreds
07-14-2006, 08:57 AM
Clayton is a stopgap pure and simple. Phillips will be the SS next season. They don't won't him to change positions at this time in the season. So you have Clayton for two and half months.
I think Majewski and Bray will help immensely in the bullpen. But on the other hand just about anyone would have been better. They are both young and should be around for a few years.
Krivsky has guts. I don't think I would have traded two everday players the caliber of Kearns and Lopez. One, yes but both no. Kivs has got to feel the pressure now. If Denorfia bombs along with Majewski and Bray while Kearns and Lopez flourish in DC or elsewhere then he may be in the unemployment line. Only time will tell but so far every move he has made has been gold. Let's hope this one is too.

Roy Tucker
07-14-2006, 09:05 AM
I think the trouble with the perception of this trade is that it was "names for plumbing" with the Reds on the plumbing end of things.

That is, we traded 2 relatively high-profile "name" guys for parts and pieces to improve the infrastructure of the team. Not a terribly sexy trade and rather subtle on the Reds side (Jimbo's side was characteristically splashy).

Not that I have any choice, but I'm going to wait and see how this pans out.

The only part I don't get is Krivsky saying that #1 money and #2 making room for Denorfia had anything to do with this trade.

I think the facts that the Reds weren't going to be able to afford Lopez and that they had Denorfia waiting in AAA to take over for Kearns had tons to do with this trade.

Falls City Beer
07-14-2006, 09:12 AM
I think the trouble with the perception of this trade is that it was "names for plumbing" with the Reds on the plumbing end of things.

That is, we traded 2 relatively high-profile "name" guys for parts and pieces to improve the infrastructure of the team. Not a terribly sexy trade and rather subtle on the Reds side (Jimbo's side was characteristically splashy).

Not that I have any choice, but I'm going to wait and see how this pans out.

The only part I don't get is Krivsky saying that #1 money and #2 making room for Denorfia had anything to do with this trade.

I think the facts that the Reds weren't going to be able to afford Lopez and that they had Denorfia waiting in AAA to take over for Kearns had tons to do with this trade.


I just keep asking myself: buy why TWO major league starters?

RedsBaron
07-14-2006, 09:13 AM
Clayton is a passing ship in the night.
A ship that needs to be hit with a torpedo and sent to the bottom, if Captain Narron really believes it should stay in the fleet. I keep reading about how Clayton "knows how to play the game," but defensively it appears he has no more range than does Lopez. I also read comments about all the errors Lopez makes, but then I read that since the start of the 2005 season Lopez has made 31 errors and Clayton has made 22 errors----I guarantee that Loepz's offense will more than make up for the nine error advantage Clayton has defensively.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 09:25 AM
A ship that needs to be hit with a torpedo and sent to the bottom if they really wanted to improve defensively the likely best solution would be to move Phillips to SS and insert Bergolla/Olmedo at 2nd.

cincinnati chili
07-14-2006, 09:32 AM
I just keep asking myself: buy why TWO major league starters?

And this from a guy, who like me, isn't too optimistic that Austin Kearns will live up to his potential.

Cyclone, thanks for taking the time to do the research to start this thread. But in all, it's like reading the bad news all over again, but in more detail. :(

Reds1
07-14-2006, 09:42 AM
Bray is only 23?

Wow I didn't know that!

With Majewski only being 26, hopefully they can anchor down the bullpen for years to come.


This is one fact that helps me get through this trade. If we get two legit BP pitchers then this trade could work out. Hopefully Deno can do 1/2 of what he's done in AAA. Ok, you know what I mean and then we just take the hit offensively with Castro, et. all and get better defense at the same time. From what I heard Deno won't be a defensive slouch either.

RedsBaron
07-14-2006, 09:58 AM
Gary Majewski: 26-years-old


Lifetime K/9 ....... 5.32
Lifetime BB/9 ...... 3.71
Lifetime HR/9 ...... 0.44
Lifetime K/BB ...... 1.43

Lifetime DIPS ERA .. 3.92
Lifetime ERA ....... 3.27

Lifetime BABIP ..... .292

Road HR/9 .......... 0.54
Road DIPS ERA ...... 3.88

Basically we're getting a guy in Majewski who's been maybe slightly BABIP hit lucky, doesn't strike many guys out at all, walks too many guys, but has the uncanny ability to keep the ball in the yard.

Key question for Majewski: How will his HR/9 rate fare once pitching half his games in GABP? His road HR/9 rate, while a small sample in only 83 innings, does look promising so hopefully the spike up in home runs allowed for Majewski is minimal.

Still, if this guy starts serving up the long ball, he could start getting torched real quick. If Majewski can continue his success in keeping the ball in the yard, he should have some success, though our poor defense may shine through and bump his ERA up close to his DIPS ERA level.

Bill Bray: Just turned 23-years-old


Lifetime K/9 ....... 6.26
Lifetime BB/9 ...... 3.52
Lifetime HR/9 ...... 0.78
Lifetime K/BB ...... 1.78

Lifetime DIPS ERA .. 4.09
Lifetime ERA ....... 3.91

Lifetime BABIP ..... .310

Minors K/9 ........ 11.44
Minors BB/9 ........ 2.63
Minors HR/9 ........ 1.14
Minors K/BB ........ 4.35

Based purely off statistics, Bray's a solid prospect lefty out of the pen. I'd like to see him carry his solid minor league K/9 rate up to the majors, but time will tell if he's able to accomplish that. His home run rate in the minors may be a tad worrisome as the combination of major league hitters + GABP could send that figure spiking higher than merely one bomb per nine innings.

The good news for Bray is he's a young 23-years-old and he's already reached the majors. Hopefully development will continue for him over the next few seasons and we may have a solid, young reliever on our hands if he's able to carry his high K/9 rate onto the big club.


I am disappointed by Majewski's K rate. I was hoping for something in at least the 7 or 8 strikeout per nine innings range. 5.32 Ks per nine innings isn't that impressive, especially for a reliever. Once a pitcher drops below 4.5 per nine innings, chances are he won't last long.
Bray's 6.26 K rate for nine innings is better, but still not great. The 11.44 K rate in the minors was great, and, as Cyclone noted, if he can bump his major league K rate to something approaching his minor league rate, then the Reds may have a valuable pitcher.

Cyclone792
07-14-2006, 10:09 AM
I am disappointed by Majewski's K rate. I was hoping for something in at least the 7 or 8 strikeout per nine innings range. 5.32 Ks per nine innings isn't that impressive, especially for a reliever. Once a pitcher drops below 4.5 per nine innings, chances are he won't last long.
Bray's 6.26 K rate for nine innings is better, but still not great. The 11.44 K rate in the minors was great, and, as Cyclone noted, if he can bump his major league K rate to something approaching his minor league rate, then the Reds may have a valuable pitcher.

You're definitely not alone in the disappointment with Majewski's K rate. Mix in his control problems, and it's troubling what could occur. Low K rate + High BB rate + Reds defense = loads of baserunners. That's not an outlook I'm thrilled to have.

Here's an interesting tidbit from Elias on ESPN:


The Reds acquired two relief pitchers -- Gary Majewski and Bill Bray -- in their multiplayer trade with Washington. Cincinnati's bullpen entered Thursday having allowed 44 home runs and a .293 opponents' batting average this season. Each of those totals was the highest for any relief corps in the National League. Additionally, Reds relievers were averaging 6.03 strikeouts per nine innings, the lowest figure for any bullpen in the National League.

I wish I wasn't seeing what I just read above, but we're taking a bullpen with the lowest K rate in the NL and adding in a pitcher [Majewski] with an even lower K rate. I do like the fact that Majewski keeps the ball on the ground and is stingy with the long ball, but it remains to be seen how stingy he'll continue to be as he walks out of a pitcher's park and into a home run hitting paradise.

SteelSD
07-14-2006, 10:31 AM
2006 BABIP:

Majewski: .262
Bray: .314

2005 BABIP:

Majewski: .288

2006 DIPS:

Majewski: 4.33 (1.21 DIPS Rate)
Bray: 3.98 (1.02 DIPS Rate)

2005 DIPS:

Majewski: 3.79 (1.29 DIPS Rate)

PECOTA Projected PERA: PERA is a pitcher's ERA as estimated from his peripheral statistics (EqH9, EqHR9, EqBB9, EqK9). Because it is not sensitive to the timing of batting events, PERA is less subject to luck than ERA, and is a better predictor of ERA going-forward than ERA itself. Like the rest of a pitcher's equivalent stats, his PERA is calibrated to an ideal league with an average PERA of 4.50

2006 Majewski: 4.28 PERA
2007 Majewski: 4.42 PERA
2008 Majewski: 4.48 PERA
2009 Majewski: 4.17 PERA
2010 Majewski: 4.32 PERA

Results for Bray are Minor League Equivalents based on his minor league performance.

2006 Bray: 5.11 PERA
2007 Bray: 4.90 PERA
2008 Bray: 4.21 PERA
2009 Bray: 4.74 PERA
2010 Bray: 4.56 PERA

PECOTA Projected Wins Above Replacement Player: Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season.

2006 Majewski: 1.3 WARP
2007 Majewski: 1.2 WARP
2008 Majewski: 1.2 WARP
2009 Majewski: 1.1 WARP
2010 Majewski: 1.0 WARP

2006 Bray: 0.8 WARP
2007 Bray: 0.7 WARP
2008 Bray: 1.0 WARP
2009 Bray: 0.5 WARP
2010 Bray: 0.8 WARP

2006 Kearns: 3.8 WARP
2007 Kearns: 3.9 WARP
2008 Kearns: 4.1 WARP
2009 Kearns: 3.6 WARP
2010 Kearns: 3.5 WARP

2006 Lopez: 3.5 WARP
2007 Lopez: 3.6 WARP
2008 Lopez: 3.6 WARP
2009 Lopez: 3.5 WARP
2010 Lopez: 3.1 WARP

And yes, those WARP numbers include defensive contribution.

Marginal Value Above Replacement Player: MORP is modelled based on the actual behavior of recent free agent markets, and accounts for non-linearity in the market price of baseball talent (e.g. teams are willing to pay more for one 6-win player than two 3-win players).

As listed in a player's PECOTA card, a player's MORP includes the major league minimum salary, estimated to be $325,000 for 2006. Further, in a player's Five-Year Forecast, we assume salary inflation of 5% per year through 2010.

For 2006, a player's MORP is estimated as follows: 485000*WARP + 216000*(WARP^2) + 325000

2006 Majewski: $1,375,000
2007 Majewski: $1,300,000
2008 Majewski: $1,375,000
2009 Majewski: $1,250,000
2010 Majewski: $1,200,000

2006 Bray: $875,000
2007 Bray: $775,000
2008 Bray: $1,075,000
2009 Bray: $750,000
2010 Bray: $1,075,000

2006 Kearns: $5,350,000
2007 Kearns: $5,900,000
2008 Kearns: $6,500,000
2009 Kearns: $5,625,000
2010 Kearns: $5,625,000

2006 Lopez: $4,600,000
2007 Lopez: $5,125,000
2008 Lopez: $5,325,000
2009 Lopez: $5,475,000
2010 Lopez: $4,825,000

Now let's add that all up...

Kearns + Lopez: $54,350,000
Majewski + Bray: $11,050,000

And here's the combined projected WARP:

Kearns + Lopez: +36.2 WARP
Majewski + Bray: +9.6 WARP

Yeah. That's right. Over the next five years, the Reds have given up potentially 26.6 WARP and over $40 million dollars of projected value in this deal. That's a projection of over 5 Wins per season. Estimate, the Reds just lost about 4 Wins per season versus the league average. Worst thing is that Kearns' WARP projections have him at a high of 500 PA through 2010. He pulls 600 PA for those seasons and we're back at a five Win gap. Bill Bray could become Billy Wagner and he wouldn't make that up.

Probability tells us they just traded two productive starting MLB players for the equivalent of the decent versions of Kent Mercker and Dennys Reyes plus the opportunity to coin-flip. Consistent, productive, high-level MLB relief pitching may be expensive but neither Majewski or Bray are that. Equitable relief pitchers are available in the offseason for a much much lower price. Brendan Harris offers very little. Royce Clayton is a Tony Womack who plays on the other side of Second Base. The A-ball pitcher is an 1% chance in what should have been a no-brainer return for the Reds with a good GM at the helm.

Wayne Krivsky (and Bob Castellini) just pullled their pants down to let every other GM know they can be had and had good. To properly evaluate this trade we have to create levels of stupid. The Reds lost wins with this return. They got nothing to secure the future. They failed to maximize their return on the last two MLB chips they can reasonably trade. They wanted to improve the bullpen. Fine. But they did it at a Run value loss which equates a Win value loss. They wanted to improve the defense but didn't.

I've stated before that I wouldn't yet pin Krivsky as a two-dimensional thinker in a three-dimensional world. Well, this one clinches it and I'm not sure he's even at a two-dimensional level. This trade is the equivalent of selling your house so that you can afford to re-shingle your garage.

Action for action's sake is just as crippling as what Dan O'Brien did. In this case, it's even worse.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 10:38 AM
I'm sorry Steel but Clayton is a veteran who knows how to play the game and makes the routine play, Jerry and Wayne told me so.

I'm thirsty, please pass the kool-aid.

BoydsOfSummer
07-14-2006, 11:19 AM
1) The Reds traded RF Austin Kearns, SS Felipe Lopez and minor league P Ryan Wagner to the Nationals for Ps Gary Majewski and Bill Bray, SS Royce Clayton, INF Brendan Harris and minor league P Daryl Thompson.

KEARNS
YEAR AGE RCAA OBA SLG OPS OWP RC/G AVG HR RBI SB G TEAM
2004 24 -4 .321 .419 .740 .443 4.30 .230 9 32 2 64 Reds
2005 25 -2 .333 .452 .785 .483 5.19 .240 18 67 0 112 Reds
2006 26 2 .351 .492 .843 .521 5.63 .274 16 50 7 87 Reds
CAR 23 .358 .468 .826 .543 5.80 .267 71 263 20 452
LG AVG 0 .340 .431 .771 .500 5.14 .269 51 209 27
POS AVG 23 .351 .458 .808 .541 5.66 .271 63 236 28

LOPEZ
YEAR AGE RCAA OBA SLG OPS OWP RC/G AVG HR RBI SB G TEAM
2004 24 -2 .314 .405 .719 .475 4.61 .242 7 31 1 79 Reds
2005 25 13 .352 .486 .838 .563 6.19 .291 23 85 15 148 Reds
2006 26 -1 .355 .394 .749 .489 5.26 .268 9 30 23 85 Reds
CAR -18 .329 .416 .744 .467 4.85 .259 54 216 56 505
LG AVG 0 .338 .431 .770 .500 5.12 .268 59 246 31
POS AVG -37 .322 .398 .720 .433 4.45 .266 39 199 47

WAGNER
YEAR AGE RSAA ERA G GS IP SO SO/9 BR/9 W L SV NW NL TEAM
2003 20 6 1.66 17 0 21.2 25 10.38 10.38 2 0 0 2 0 Reds
2004 21 -4 4.70 49 0 51.2 37 6.45 15.33 3 2 0 2 3 Reds
2005 22 -8 6.11 42 0 45.2 39 7.69 15.18 3 2 0 2 3 Reds
CAREER -6 4.69 108 0 119 101 7.64 14.37 8 4 0 6 6
LG AVG 0 4.28 119 88 6.66 12.80 7 7

MAJEWSKI
YEAR AGE RSAA ERA G GS IP SO SO/9 BR/9 W L SV NW NL TEAM
2004 24 1 3.86 16 0 21 12 5.14 15.00 0 1 1 1 0 Expos
2005 25 10 2.93 79 0 86 50 5.23 12.98 4 4 1 5 3 Nationals
2006 26 10 3.58 46 0 55.1 34 5.53 12.20 3 2 0 3 2 Nationals
CAREER 21 3.27 141 0 162.1 96 5.32 12.97 7 7 2 9 5
LG AVG 0 4.36 162.1 119 6.60 12.91 9 9

BRAY
YEAR AGE RSAA ERA G GS IP SO SO/9 BR/9 W L SV NW NL TEAM
2006 3 3.91 19 0 23 16 6.26 13.30 1 1 0 1 1 Nationals
CAREER 3 3.91 19 0 23 16 6.26 13.30 1 1 0 1 1
LG AVG 0 4.57 23 17 6.58 13.18 1 1

CLAYTON
YEAR AGE RCAA OBA SLG OPS OWP RC/G AVG HR RBI SB G TEAM
2004 34 -31 .338 .397 .735 .348 4.48 .279 8 54 10 146 Rockies
2005 35 -25 .320 .351 .670 .336 3.64 .270 2 44 13 143 Diamondbacks
2006 36 -22 .315 .348 .663 .285 3.65 .269 0 27 8 87 Nationals
CAR -310 .313 .369 .682 .349 3.75 .259 107 698 223 1981
LG AVG 0 .340 .427 .766 .500 5.10 .270 224 972 147
POS AVG -156 .326 .386 .712 .425 4.38 .266 133 759 173

Clayton ranks 5th on the all time list for worst career RCAA--

1 Ski Melillo -355
2 Tommy Thevenow -351
3 Neifi Perez -340
4 Bill Bergen -312
5 Royce Clayton -310
6 Tim Foli -309
7 Larry Bowa -307
8 Alfredo Griffin -306
T9 Don Kessinger -305
T9 Ozzie Guillen -305

HARRIS
YEAR AGE RCAA OBA SLG OPS OWP RC/G AVG HR RBI SB G TEAM
2004 23 -5 .222 .271 .493 .178 2.20 .169 1 3 0 23 Cubs/Expos
2005 24 0 .400 .778 1.178 .353 3.38 .333 1 3 0 4 Nationals
2006 25 -3 .333 .313 .646 .243 3.24 .250 0 2 0 17 Nationals
CAR -8 .275 .330 .605 .214 2.63 .210 2 8 0 44
LG AVG 0 .341 .437 .778 .500 5.24 .270 4 14 2
POS AVG -1 .337 .413 .749 .465 4.88 .274 3 12 3

registerthis
07-14-2006, 11:23 AM
Clayton doesn't even have the dreads anymore, that would have at least made him interestign to watch.

http://static.flickr.com/29/45337950_bb46f4ce5c_o.jpg

RedsBaron
07-14-2006, 11:24 AM
Kearns for Bray, or Lopez for Bray---I could live with that trade I guess. Kearns and Lopez for Bray is too steep, and that's what the trade probably comes down to, in terms of any value the Reds received.

Reds1
07-14-2006, 11:31 AM
Majewski: 0-5 in save situations. He'll fit right in!

Ltlabner
07-14-2006, 11:32 AM
Kearns for Bray, or Lopez for Bray---I could live with that trade I guess. Kearns and Lopez for Bray is too steep, and that's what the trade probably comes down to, in terms of any value the Reds received.

Or Kerns for Magic and Bray,
Lopez for two prospects and a stop-gap SS
Wagner as a toss in

registerthis
07-14-2006, 11:36 AM
The more I read evaluations about this deal, the worse it looks. Particularly considering the numbers Steel posted above, this is a fleecing the likes of which haven't been seen around these parts for some time. I didn't like the deal when I read about it yesterday, and I dislike it even more now.

I posted this in the other thread, but it bears repeating: what an absolute squandering of talent this deal was. This may not be Frank Robinson-bad, but it's up there.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:48 AM
Clayton ranks 5th on the all time list for worst career RCAA--and the Reds are going to give him ample opportunity to move higher.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:50 AM
this is a fleecing the likes of which haven't been seen around these parts for some time.which is The Hardball Times take on the trade. They felt you had to go back to Kazmir/Zambrano to find such an obviously lopsided trade.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:52 AM
I posted this in the other thread, but it bears repeating: what an absolute squandering of talent this deal was. It was a waste of resources that failed to address the biggest problem this team is likely to encounter in the 2nd half(the 4/5 rotation spots). How does WK fill those when he realizes he still doesn't have a playoff team? There is a good chance Dunn could be gone by the trading deadline.

CrackerJack
07-14-2006, 12:08 PM
1-0 post trade with 9 runs scored. :) Offense didn't miss a beat with the mighty Castro. (alright so normally they would've only scored 5-7 runs)

People are acting as though finding bats to replace the inconsistent Lopez and Kearns are going to be a huge challenge.

I think Denorfia and eventually Votto will do just that ultimately. Then there's Bruce down the road and any other bat they can find in the off-season if necessary.

If reliable/decent/good middle relievers are so easy to find - why haven't the Reds picked up any the last two seasons, and were relegated to rushing Wagner and signing hopeless guys at the end of their ropes?

Obviously the market for Lopez and Kearns wasn't that great - finding bats to fill in their inconsistent production and Lopez' bad defense shouldn't be nearly as much of a challenge as acquiring 3 young pitchers in their early-mid 20's who still have some upside and decent track records.

The Reds acquired 5 more players that can be flipped for more as well, when packaged with anyone else they can shed from the failed DanO/Bowden era.

I would also like to know how many middle relievers have K rates over 8, or even 7? Wouldn't they be closers or starters if so? They're middle relievers for a reason. If I'm wrong there on a large scale - please correct me with #'s!

Sure the Reds overpaid, but it's not as if they sold the farm for Felipe in the first place. I refuse to overreact to this because we didn't get Willis for the almighty Kearns and Lopez.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 12:11 PM
There is a good chance Dunn could be gone by the trading deadline.

I keep reading that on here, but I highly doubt it. He's essentially signed to a very reasonable contract through 2008, and he's the only consistently dependable source of power on this team. This offense would plummet like a rock if Kearns, Lopez AND Dunn were removed.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 12:24 PM
I keep reading that on here, but I highly doubt it. He's essentially signed to a very reasonable contract through 2008, and he's the only consistently dependable source of power on this team. This offense would plummet like a rock if Kearns, Lopez AND Dunn were removed.this organization seems to place the most value on pitching and defense. Dunn doesn't qualify in either area. Lopez and Kearns both had reasonable contracts as well. They certainly aren't going to get any pitching for the likes of Larue, Aurilia, Jr, etc.

For WK and Narron it is not about offense, it's pitching and defense.

princeton
07-14-2006, 12:25 PM
He's essentially signed to a very reasonable contract through 2008.

exactly, as are the new relievers. The trade is a loss of talent for us, but the dollar per talent ratio drops, the replacements will shore up holes (while creating new ones...) and if Bill Bray is the Ultimate Answer, then things'll be OK.

Jr's contract is less reasonable, but he does have value that goes beyond his on-field contributions.

Eric Milton, OTOH...

dougdirt
07-14-2006, 12:34 PM
They better go out and spend some real money on FA at the end of the year.

Reds1
07-14-2006, 12:39 PM
this organization seems to place the most value on pitching and defense. Dunn doesn't qualify in either area. Lopez and Kearns both had reasonable contracts as well. They certainly aren't going to get any pitching for the likes of Larue, Aurilia, Jr, etc.

For WK and Narron it is not about offense, it's pitching and defense.

I think this sealed the deal for Dunn NOT to be dealt. Say Dunn is gone and Griffey goes on the DL. Can you see this line up. EE would be our big power source. I think they will deal with Dunn's defense (which lately seems to have been better) for his offense. He's plate coverage, ability to get on, and hit long HRs has even more value with Kearns gone. If defense was such a high priority they would have kept Kearns. He was our best defensive OF. They pretty much played out what they can, but there comes a time when you have to go with what you have. With Deno and Bruce we have some OF coming up and one was expendable, but not both. IMO! :)

flyer85
07-14-2006, 12:41 PM
I think this sealed the deal for Dunn NOT to be dealt. Say Dunn is gone and Griffey goes on the DL. Can you see this line up. Yes, much better defensively. I'm sure the Reds will win 1-0 or 2-1. :devil:

Reds1
07-14-2006, 12:45 PM
Yes, much better defensively. I'm sure the Reds will win 1-0 or 2-1. :devil:

Well, yes. I know, but you can't have all defense. We need a guy to rake and if Dunn ever makes contact and strikes out less and becomes a .270 BA and does better with RISP he really could be a super star. I think he's value is up now with Kearns gone. Kearns has some talent, but someone had to go and one thing Dunn has over Kearns is Dunn is never injured.

Do you agree? :)

Yachtzee
07-14-2006, 01:00 PM
For WK and Narron it is not about offense, it's pitching and defense.

Well, it must be mediocre pitching and overrated defense, based on Krivsky's latest moves. Time will tell with this trade. I have a feeling that if it doesn't work out, the only trading chips they have left to net some top-notch talent to improve the team are Dunn, Arroyo and Harang.

37red
07-14-2006, 02:43 PM
LAbner made a good point that just by having some new relief pitchers on the mound the infield won't be tense, expect the worst and be error prone. Also remember when comparing infielder error stats they're directly related to the pitching staff whether it's the catcher or anyone on the dirt.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 02:49 PM
exactly, as are the new relievers. The trade is a loss of talent for us, but the dollar per talent ratio drops, the replacements will shore up holes (while creating new ones...) and if Bill Bray is the Ultimate Answer, then things'll be OK.

Steel posted some very interesting stats in another thread discussing the drop in run production taht can be expected with the loss of Lopez and Kearns, and the addition of Majewski and Bray. It's not even close.

This trade helps our bullpen, but it kills our offense. And it places a LOT of reliance on the ability of Denorfia to produce at a high level. I'm not sure that's going to happen.

princeton
07-14-2006, 03:11 PM
This trade helps our bullpen, but it kills our offense.

I'm hoping for hurt and not killed. The offense had to suffer. The pitching had to change, both now and in the future. I like that we didn't get 3 month pitchers. Watch Bowden-- we know how long his pitching acquisition will stay.

color me intrigued by the whole thing. What we had couldn't have worked, and what Krivsky has done until now has worked out better.

the risk is that we'll wind up still having bad pitching while messing up the offense. I don't disagree that could be the case.

but other than dealing WMP, which was also the right trade, we've kept the right players for the market and for the ballpark. too bad we didn't keep that other Ross guy.

the Reds FO looks brave, decisive, creative, pragmatic, and unconventional. they're heading in the right direction-- unless they can't recover from the offensive wounds.

medic?

IslandRed
07-14-2006, 04:23 PM
Steel, your post on the previous page is terrific, as always. But there's one important point that needs to be factored in -- service time. Projecting a guy's value five years out is useful, but anything beyond the free-agency threshold (unless signed beyond that) can't be carried on the club's talent ledger as an asset.

RedsManRick
07-14-2006, 04:33 PM
This trade, to me, reeks of trading guys for what you think they're worth, rather than for what they are worth to the team to whom you are trading them.

The failure in this trade is not who we got. I think we can say that Deno/Freel can make up the loss of Kearns and that the improvement to the bullpen maybe makes up what Lopez could do. In fact, let's go way out on an assumption limb and say the team is as good right now as it was 3 days ago.

The problem is who we DIDN'T get. Kearns/Lopez were our two big trading chits. The hopes of landing an Ervin Santana or other true impact guy were tied up in our limited, but valuable, tradable assets.

This deal, while arguably a pretty decent talent loss, hurt us more in who we are now unable to pursue, more than it did in terms of our chances to win today.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 04:44 PM
I'm hoping for hurt and not killed. The offense had to suffer. The pitching had to change, both now and in the future. I like that we didn't get 3 month pitchers.

With Kearns and Lopez being dealt, we certainly should have been able to get more than 3 month pitchers. We should have been able to get more than majewski and Bray as well.

IslandRed
07-14-2006, 05:20 PM
The problem is who we DIDN'T get. Kearns/Lopez were our two big trading chits. The hopes of landing an Ervin Santana or other true impact guy were tied up in our limited, but valuable, tradable assets.

That was my thought too, but I have to consider the possibility that our opinions of Kearns' and Lopez' trade value may not be what it is in the real world.

The reason teams love young players is because they can keep them around for awhile and they're cheap relative to paying for the same talent on the free-agent market. Problem is, by the time a guy hits his walk year he can score about as much dough in arbitration as if he was actually on the market. The true tipping point nowadays separating "cheap" players from "market value" players is really five years of service, not six. (Edited due to uncertainty over service time...) They are not free agents, but they're soon to be as expensive as comparable veterans, and that makes them worth less in trade. It also means the Reds, should the deal completely blow up, have an out -- go shopping with the money they would have spent on Lopez and Kearns.

D-Man
07-16-2006, 11:16 AM
I'm hoping for hurt and not killed. The offense had to suffer. The pitching had to change, both now and in the future. I like that we didn't get 3 month pitchers. Watch Bowden-- we know how long his pitching acquisition will stay.

color me intrigued by the whole thing. What we had couldn't have worked, and what Krivsky has done until now has worked out better.

the risk is that we'll wind up still having bad pitching while messing up the offense. I don't disagree that could be the case.

but other than dealing WMP, which was also the right trade, we've kept the right players for the market and for the ballpark. too bad we didn't keep that other Ross guy.

the Reds FO looks brave, decisive, creative, pragmatic, and unconventional. they're heading in the right direction-- unless they can't recover from the offensive wounds.

medic?

This move is nothing but GM hubris, so I think everyone is intrigued. What is interesting is that the move has been universally panned (rightfully so, in my opinion), and when a big move like this is universally panned, it rarely turns out as badly as everyone expected. . . Like drafting Joe Mauer over Prior. . . Or trading Rob Bell for Ruben Mateo. . . Or drafting Edgerrin James instead of Rickey Williams.

I am less worried about the offensive dropoff than most. At the All-Star break, the Reds had scored ~40 fewer runs than predicted by the runs created formula. The Reds' offense had been highly inefficient in the first half. That means one of two things: either the offense has been extremely unlucky at converting baserunners into runs (most likely), or the high-BB, high-HR, low-BA offense looked better on paper than it really was (is?). Either way, the Reds have the luxury of giving up some runs without negative repercussions in the runs scored column.

oregonred
07-16-2006, 05:38 PM
2006 BABIP:


Results for Bray are Minor League Equivalents based on his minor league performance.

2006 Bray: 5.11 PERA
2007 Bray: 4.90 PERA
2008 Bray: 4.21 PERA
2009 Bray: 4.74 PERA
2010 Bray: 4.56 PERA

PECOTA Projected Wins Above Replacement Player: Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season.

2006 Majewski: 1.3 WARP
2007 Majewski: 1.2 WARP
2008 Majewski: 1.2 WARP
2009 Majewski: 1.1 WARP
2010 Majewski: 1.0 WARP

2006 Bray: 0.8 WARP
2007 Bray: 0.7 WARP
2008 Bray: 1.0 WARP
2009 Bray: 0.5 WARP
2010 Bray: 0.8 WARP



Steel -- Interesting, but why are Bray's projections so low? His K/9 and K/BB minor numbers look fantastic and he's up in the bigs and effective and he just turned 23 last month.



2006 Kearns: 3.8 WARP
2007 Kearns: 3.9 WARP
2008 Kearns: 4.1 WARP
2009 Kearns: 3.6 WARP
2010 Kearns: 3.5 WARP

2006 Lopez: 3.5 WARP
2007 Lopez: 3.6 WARP
2008 Lopez: 3.6 WARP
2009 Lopez: 3.5 WARP
2010 Lopez: 3.1 WARP

And yes, those WARP numbers include defensive contribution.

Marginal Value Above Replacement Player: MORP is modelled based on the actual behavior of recent free agent markets, and accounts for non-linearity in the market price of baseball talent (e.g. teams are willing to pay more for one 6-win player than two 3-win players).

As listed in a player's PECOTA card, a player's MORP includes the major league minimum salary, estimated to be $325,000 for 2006. Further, in a player's Five-Year Forecast, we assume salary inflation of 5% per year through 2010.

For 2006, a player's MORP is estimated as follows: 485000*WARP + 216000*(WARP^2) + 325000

2006 Majewski: $1,375,000
2007 Majewski: $1,300,000
2008 Majewski: $1,375,000
2009 Majewski: $1,250,000
2010 Majewski: $1,200,000

2006 Bray: $875,000
2007 Bray: $775,000
2008 Bray: $1,075,000
2009 Bray: $750,000
2010 Bray: $1,075,000

2006 Kearns: $5,350,000
2007 Kearns: $5,900,000
2008 Kearns: $6,500,000
2009 Kearns: $5,625,000
2010 Kearns: $5,625,000

2006 Lopez: $4,600,000
2007 Lopez: $5,125,000
2008 Lopez: $5,325,000
2009 Lopez: $5,475,000
2010 Lopez: $4,825,000

Now let's add that all up...

Kearns + Lopez: $54,350,000
Majewski + Bray: $11,050,000

And here's the combined projected WARP:

Kearns + Lopez: +36.2 WARP
Majewski + Bray: +9.6 WARP

Yeah. That's right. Over the next five years, the Reds have given up potentially 26.6 WARP and over $40 million dollars of projected value in this deal. That's a projection of over 5 Wins per season. Estimate, the Reds just lost about 4 Wins per season versus the league average. Worst thing is that Kearns' WARP projections have him at a high of 500 PA through 2010. He pulls 600 PA for those seasons and we're back at a five Win gap. Bill Bray could become Billy Wagner and he wouldn't make that up.

Interesting, but factor in the following;

1) 60% of the 2006 production of Kearns/Lopez was already realized by the Reds.

2) Factor out Kearns value after 2008 season. Factor out Lopez's value after the 2008 (and maybe 2007) seasons.

3) 5% salary inflation -- maybe I don't get what you are saying... Felipe and Kearns salaries may triple from now until 2008 -- with end of service time benefits as MLB's idiotic salary escalation starts to really kick in for service years 5-6. Kearns will be a 4M guy in 2007 and 6-7M in 2008. Lopez a 4-5M guy in 2007 and a 6-8M guy in 2008. 2007 is the year they begin to be no longer underpaid to market. 2008 (maybe 2007 for Lopez) is when they begin to be overpaid to market -- I'd rather their first LTC albatross be given out by someone else. And safe to say Bowden (unless he gets canned before then) will be the one to give them that payday -- be afraid Nats fans be very afraid :)

4) Kearns career high is 387 AB's, assuming him at 500AB for the duration is a major leap.

5) Bray is under Reds control until 2012, Maj until 2011. Dirt cheap until 2010.




Consistent, productive, high-level MLB relief pitching may be expensive but neither Majewski or Bray are that.


Now you're getting subjective... Maj has been a career 3 ERA guy and sub .680 OPS pitcher across his 1.5 years of service. His career OPS is about 150 pts lower than Coffey's with a higher K/IP ratio in the bigs. Same age...

Bray -- Key man in the deal for the Reds (Hope the Reds scouts are right). Just turned 23, great minor numbers in K/9 and K/BB. Small sample size but the early returns look like he could be a gem. Lefty, under control until 2012. Very interesting.


[
Equitable relief pitchers are available in the offseason for a much much lower price.


Maybe old vets demanding multi-year contracts. Or DFA fodder willing to do one year deals like what usually passes through Cincinnati. Low service time and productive relievers don't grow on trees -- and there aren't any at the upper levels of the Reds minor league system.

This is one interesting trade and I like the overall direction -- the return is very debatable. Bray needs to become a stud setup man at minimum and Maj needs to keep being a Scott Sullivan rubber-arm for this to turn out well for the Reds.

SteelSD
07-16-2006, 07:12 PM
Steel -- Interesting, but why are Bray's projections so low? His K/9 and K/BB minor numbers look fantastic and he's up in the bigs and effective and he just turned 23 last month.

Bill Bray 2004-2005: 9.57 H/9 IP, 2.68 BB/9 IP, 10.53 K/9 IP, 0.96 HR/9 IP
Bill Bray 2006 (AAA): 7.39 H/9 IP, 2.56 BB/9 IP, 12.78 K/9 IP, 1.42 HR/9 IP

Small sample size, yes (78.2 IP). But the HR rates are unacceptable. He throws reasonably hard, but not exceptionally hard. If HR rates are high, I need to see a dominant fastball. I don't.


Interesting, but factor in the following;

1) 60% of the 2006 production of Kearns/Lopez was already realized by the Reds.

Ditto for the pitchers being acquired.


2) Factor out Kearns value after 2008 season. Factor out Lopez's value after the 2008 (and maybe 2007) seasons.

Assume worst-case scenario and you're still left with a huge value gap.


3) 5% salary inflation -- maybe I don't get what you are saying... Felipe and Kearns salaries may triple from now until 2008 -- with end of service time benefits as MLB's idiotic salary escalation starts to really kick in for service years 5-6. Kearns will be a 4M guy in 2007 and 6-7M in 2008. Lopez a 4-5M guy in 2007 and a 6-8M guy in 2008. 2007 is the year they begin to be no longer underpaid to market. 2008 (maybe 2007 for Lopez) is when they begin to be overpaid to market -- I'd rather their first LTC albatross be given out by someone else. And safe to say Bowden (unless he gets canned before then) will be the one to give them that payday -- be afraid Nats fans be very afraid :)

So you either deal them for more value this season (or offseason) or at the point in time when they're going to be truly expensive while still turning a Run value and dollar value win over what the Reds got. It's highly doubtful the Reds could possibly have received less at any point in time in the future through their walk year(s).


4) Kearns career high is 387 AB's, assuming him at 500AB for the duration is a major leap.

Austin Kearns spent portions of 2002 and 2005 in the minors. We tend to forget that. He's been injured some, but none of it is related to an isolated issue. Freak stuff. Staph infection in his finger. Ray King sat on him. Unless we can project that kind of stuff to frequently pop up in the future, I see no reason that a 500 AB projection- at minimum- isn't reasonable. And another thing we tend to forget is that, until recently, when he's been healthy he's had to deal with an OF logjam that's robbed him of some number of PA.


5) Bray is under Reds control until 2012, Maj until 2011. Dirt cheap until 2010.

Other relievers acquired for less would be just as cheap and could project to be with the team as long. I'm seeing a lot of justification attempts based around this point and an erroneous assumption that money saved by trading Kearns and Lopez are "value-added" items. They're not.


Now you're getting subjective... Maj has been a career 3 ERA guy and sub .680 OPS pitcher across his 1.5 years of service. His career OPS is about 150 pts lower than Coffey's with a higher K/IP ratio in the bigs. Same age...

No, I'm not being subjective. There are a couple things we must understand.

1. Majewski's DIPS ERA rate has been well over 1.00 for two years now. He's been ERA-lucky; mostly because he's also been BABIP-lucky.

2. Relief pitchers record ERA numbers that are around half a Run lower than Starting Pitchers. We need to adjust our views on good v. average v. bad accordingly. If a RP's ERA is 3.50 and that ERA matches his DIPS and his BABIP is average and his HR rate is good, he's still pretty near a 4.00 ERA. I suspect this has a lot to do with partial Inning usage patterns. Regardless, it's an item we have to look at.

When the trade went down, Majewski's DIPS rate was over 1.20 (120%+ of his ERA). Since then, Majewski's DIPS rate has gone down (1.06) because his ERA has risen (now at 3.97) while his DIPS rate hasn't changed. His BABIP luck is equalizing and his ERA is now a more true reflection of how he's actually pitched this year. Knowing that, we're able to get a clearer picture on exactly how close to average Majewski is this season. On the bright side, Majewski produces decent HR rates. But his low K/9 and higher BB/9 rates don't project him to get a whole lot better.

The outlook might be better had the Reds actually improved the team defense when acquiring him, but that would still be more about the defense than it would be about Majewski.


Bray -- Key man in the deal for the Reds (Hope the Reds scouts are right). Just turned 23, great minor numbers in K/9 and K/BB. Small sample size but the early returns look like he could be a gem. Lefty, under control until 2012. Very interesting.

Exceptionally risky unless he projected a Billy Wagner-level fastball or somehow finds a way to keep the longball from being an issue.


Maybe old vets demanding multi-year contracts. Or DFA fodder willing to do one year deals like what usually passes through Cincinnati. Low service time and productive relievers don't grow on trees -- and there aren't any at the upper levels of the Reds minor league system.

If Krivsky had actually found near-lock level shutdown relievers, this one might be more palatable. But he didn't. He found slightly above average and a whole lotta' risk. I understand why folks are slathering that dish with ketchup right now, but I'd rather it taste good either with or without condiments.


This is one interesting trade and I like the overall direction -- the return is very debatable. Bray needs to become a stud setup man at minimum and Maj needs to keep being a Scott Sullivan rubber-arm for this to turn out well for the Reds.

They need to become that just to get this deal to slightly below average. And I dislike the direction in it's entirety. It's a two dimensional move in a three dimensional world.

princeton
07-17-2006, 07:56 AM
I am less worried about the offensive dropoff than most. At the All-Star break, the Reds had scored ~40 fewer runs than predicted by the runs created formula. The Reds' offense had been highly inefficient in the first half. That means one of two things: either the offense has been extremely unlucky at converting baserunners into runs (most likely), or the high-BB, high-HR, low-BA offense looked better on paper than it really was (is?). Either way, the Reds have the luxury of giving up some runs without negative repercussions in the runs scored column.

I think that these are fine points. While I anticipate that next year's lineup will be improved, I still see Royce Clayton or Juan Castro in this year's.

But if Adam Dunn grows up, it'll be worth it.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 09:32 AM
I think that these are fine points. While I anticipate that next year's lineup will be improved, I still see Royce Clayton or Juan Castro in this year's.

But if Adam Dunn grows up, it'll be worth it.

I don't have a problem with trading Kearns to help Adam Dunn grow up. I have a problem with trading Kearns for mediocre middle relief.

princeton
07-17-2006, 09:45 AM
I don't have a problem with trading Kearns to help Adam Dunn grow up. I have a problem with trading Kearns for mediocre middle relief.

I have a problem with Kearns never even approaching his ceiling. That's the real tragedy for the Reds.

Maybe Dunn will.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 09:56 AM
I have a problem with Kearns never even approaching his ceiling.

In a season where he's been healthy and has the position to himself.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 10:59 AM
In a season where he's been healthy and has the position to himself.

His OPS was around .850 -- 10th best among qualifying MLB right fielders and 28th best among all outfielders.

And he's only 26 years old. What's the expectation -- 1.000 OPS before his 27th birthday?

To hear some people talk, you'd think he was past his prime. In reality, his best years are still ahead of him.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 11:02 AM
To hear some people talk, you'd think he was past his prime. In reality, his best years are still ahead of him.


If all works out as planned. Especially since people have been saying this for quite a while now.

I guess the fact that the two pitchers we got are also very young and have many years ahead of them to improve is forgotten by most. AK is destined to improve and have his best years, yet these kids have no room for improvement and don't have any years ahead of them.

Doesn't add up in my book.

westofyou
07-17-2006, 11:07 AM
To hear some people talk, you'd think he was past his prime. In reality, his best years are still ahead of him.

That's true, but he's also going to start getting more cash too, wasn't the goal to get him to out perform his contract (Like Dunn did) If he's going to that this year he'll have to get cooking, but if he is getting 4 million next year is that something that the Reds need to have to deal with? Or should they use him to plug up a gaping hole?

princeton
07-17-2006, 11:10 AM
To hear some people talk, you'd think he was past his prime. In reality, his best years are still ahead of him.

I agree, but it wasn't happening for him here, and he won't be cheap during those years. Reds had to choose, and chose Dunn. Good choice, IMO.

a few years back, I really thought that he'd be an MVP candidate a couple of times by now. That's too much to ask, of course, but really I'm shocked that he's never even been an all-star.

the return's not enough, but Krivsky didn't waste Kearns's talent. So far, he's done that on his own.

and Wayne's been hitting three pointers from deep lately. He picked up an aging righty with a declining K rate, a suspect middle infielder and a neverwas catcher. Maybe he's feeling too cocky, but maybe he's feeling it. He'll miss some, but let him shoot.

SteelSD
07-17-2006, 11:21 AM
That's true, but he's also going to start getting more cash too, wasn't the goal to get him to out perform his contract (Like Dunn did) If he's going to that this year he'll have to get cooking, but if he is getting 4 million next year is that something that the Reds need to have to deal with? Or should they use him to plug up a gaping hole?

Whether or not the Reds had a hole that needed to be plugged really isn't a point of contention.

What they plugged it with is, as is the cost paid for the job.

westofyou
07-17-2006, 11:28 AM
What they plugged it with is, as is the cost paid for the job.

Of course it is, but that's being throw aside before the particpants have even made their contribution, all the talk now slides over to the departing bat projections of the Reds and negative possibilities for the new Reds.

It's reached an apex, it's almost time for the performance to flesh out and the noise to subside about the trade, othewise we're all just running in place.

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 11:33 AM
I must say, as far as Gary Majewski goes, this is what stands out to me:


K/9 BB/9 K/BB

Gary Majewski Career 5.39 3.74 1.44
2006 Reds Bullpen 6.11 3.32 1.84

The 2006 Reds bullpen has been awful; nobody is disputing that. Part of the bullpen's awfulness has been their inability to strike batters out and their propensity to walk too many batters.

Gary Majewski strikes out fewer batters and walks more batters than the collective effort of the 2006 Reds Bullpen.

That's a difficult task to accomplish, but Majewski's accomplished it. And it's a big reason why many others here, myself included, feel that Gary Majewski was overvalued by the Reds' brass in this deal.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 11:50 AM
Gary Majewski strikes out fewer batters and walks more batters than the collective effort of the 2006 Reds Bullpen.

That's a difficult task to accomplish, but Majewski's accomplished it. And it's a big reason why many others here, myself included, feel that Gary Majewski was overvalued by the Reds' brass in this deal.I got raked across the coals for calling Majewski "very average".

SteelSD
07-17-2006, 11:53 AM
Of course it is, but that's being throw aside before the particpants have even made their contribution, all the talk now slides over to the departing bat projections of the Reds and negative possibilities for the new Reds.

It's reached an apex, it's almost time for the performance to flesh out and the noise to subside about the trade, othewise we're all just running in place.

And on the flip side, the trade justification position has slid over to red herrings about the future cost of two productive moveable commodities and money allegedly "saved" for the offseason.

What the Reds have acquired are two guys who project DIPS rates around 4.00 (and, combined they're above that now). Fine. But the cost was far far too high for what they represent over the @140 IP we might see from those two guys annually (@7-10 Runs saved versus average per season). If those pitchers projected better than that, I'd be the first guy to say it.

IIRC, you've long advocated not spending big bucks on relief pitching. But when translated to current and future projected Run value and Win value, the Reds just spent big bucks on relief pitching. Sure, we can wait and see how it all plays out, but I'd rather be on top of it in the here and now.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:03 PM
from BP on the deal


Clayton for Lopez is a loss. Although the Reds have a decent pair of alternatives to Kearns in the outfield in Denorfia and Freel, that's still a net loss at the plate, a lost opportunity if Kearns blossoms as much as he can and should, and also costs the Reds the flexibility of having Kearns around to play center after Ken Griffey Jr.'s next breakdown. Will the relievers make up for those losses within this season? No. Career value? Even if both Bray and Majewski are far from eligibility for free agency, two relievers are not as valuable as a quality outfielder and a quality shortstop who, although arbitration-eligible, are also both not about to be free agents. Do the spare bits make up the difference? Absolutely not, not unless Thompson does something more than just pan out. This deal shouldn't have been made by the Reds if it was Kearns without Lopez in the package going to Washington, it's a bit of a toss-up if it's just Lopez without Kearns, and with both in the deal, it's a massive mistake with potentially crippling consequences for the Reds' playoff bid now, as well as to their ability to field a quality lineup in the future.

The only people that like this deal are interested observers. I haven't found a single impartial observer who likes Reds side of this deal.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 12:03 PM
If all works out as planned. Especially since people have been saying this for quite a while now.

I guess the fact that the two pitchers we got are also very young and have many years ahead of them to improve is forgotten by most. AK is destined to improve and have his best years, yet these kids have no room for improvement and don't have any years ahead of them.

Doesn't add up in my book.

Bray has a good future and could potentially develop into a closer. His minor league K/9 is excellent.

Majewski projects as a middle reliever. Always has. Sure, he could somehow learn how to strike out more than 5.5 batters per 9 innings and develop into a lights-out setup man. I could also hit the lottery. But I'm not betting on it.

Kearns is performing well *right now* -- better than Bray and Majewski in their respective roles. And he's three months younger than Majewski, so you can include him among the "kids" you're referring to.

Lopez, too.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 12:05 PM
I got raked across the coals for calling Majewski "very average".

You shouldn't have been.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:12 PM
You shouldn't have been.it was only by a few posters who made the point how "above average" Majewski's ERA was. Of course, Steel has documented how that argument is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

My first comment when the deal went down was that the Reds must know something about Bray that we do not.

westofyou
07-17-2006, 12:13 PM
IIRC, you've long advocated not spending big bucks on relief pitching. But when translated to current and future projected Run value and Win value, the Reds just spent big bucks on relief pitching. Sure, we can wait and see how it all plays out, but I'd rather be on top of it in the here and now.

I'm also against the Reds trotting out a SS that they feel they have to highlight with a scrappy vet at 3rd to help run the infield and that's the vibe I was getting from them. They lost confidence in Lopez's SS play and that's why he's gone (IMO) as for Kearns it looks like the Reds flipped his 9 WS for 4 Reliver WS, there are alot fewer relievers with 4 WS then OF's with 9.

Big arse gamble yes, but one that is trying to rekindle interest in a team that lost 9 out 29 prior to the break and only drew 22K on Friday night.

The Reds are still a mess yes, but did we really expect anything else at this point?

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:14 PM
The Reds are still a mess yes, but did we really expect anything else at this point?and one without anything left to trade from the major league roster that would help with the "mess".

registerthis
07-17-2006, 12:17 PM
The only people that like this deal are interested observers. I haven't found a single impartial observer who likes Reds side of this deal.

This, IMO, is the most telling part of this trade.

SteelSD
07-17-2006, 12:21 PM
I'm also against the Reds trotting out a SS that they feel they have to highlight with a scrappy vet at 3rd to help run the infield and that's the vibe I was getting from them. They lost confidence in Lopez's SS play and that's why he's gone (IMO) as for Kearns it looks like the Reds flipped his 9 WS for 4 Reliver WS, there are alot fewer relievers with 4 WS then OF's with 9.

Big arse gamble yes, but one that is trying to rekindle interest in a team that lost 9 out 29 prior to the break and only drew 22K on Friday night.

The Reds are still a mess yes, but did we really expect anything else at this point?

No. I had hoped for more, but pretty much expected what we're seeing.

And I agree with you that the Reds lots confidence in Lopez' defense at SS and that's why he's gone. I figured as much the moment they acquired Juan Castro. Problem is that the Castro and Clayton acquisitions tell me that the Reds don't really know much about defense.

pedro
07-17-2006, 12:23 PM
This, IMO, is the most telling part of this trade.

First off, all you have to do is listen to most other teams announcers and most of the dudes on ESPN to know that a good many of them don't have a clue what they're talking about. At this point I think it's become popular to pan the trade and everyone is riding the wave because it's easy to do.

Secondly, most of these guys haven't watched Lopez play SS every night since last year. I have and by the AS break last year I was saying he needed to be moved to 2B. The Reds were never going to win with Lopez at SS and neither will any other team. That to me is the most telling part of this trade and it speaks volumes to what I feel Lopez' true trade value was. Minimal at best considering his agent and potential salary next year.

westofyou
07-17-2006, 12:25 PM
Problem is that the Castro and Clayton acquisitions tell me that the Reds don't really know much about defense.
IMO those two are simply a Steve DeBerg move, The Reds want someone to run the IF and teach the boys how to think on their feet, something that most likely wasn't happening at all before.

Of course DeBerg sucked most of the time, but he usually made the right decisions.

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 12:26 PM
I got raked across the coals for calling Majewski "very average".

Probably a misunderstanding of the importance of K rate, BB rate and HR rate for pitchers and how it's tied to likely future performance.

Majewski's bread and butter is his HR rate. Giving up only 0.44 HR/9 is pretty darn good, and that's his saving grace from being below average.

Only problem is he's moving from a big time picher's park to a big time home run hitter's park. RFK's home run index in 2005 was 0.77, while GABP's home run index from 2003-2005 was 1.17.

That's a potential nasty problem for Majewski, which now means it's a potential nasty problem for the Reds. Ground ball pitcher or not, a third of Majewski's BIP are still fly balls. You and I know this, but others need to realize that if Majewski starts giving up more longballs, even if only a result of a new home park, he could fit right in with our current bullpen incompetence.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:27 PM
Majewski's bread and butter is his HR rate. Giving up only 0.44 HR/9 is pretty darn good, and that's his saving grace from being below average.

Only problem is he's moving from a big time picher's park to a big time home run hitter's park. RFK's home run index in 2005 was 0.77, while GABP's home run index from 2003-2005 was 1.17.I pointed right after the trade, that we really don't know how much he benefitted from RFK's HR suppressing tendencies (but we will find out).

pedro
07-17-2006, 12:30 PM
I pointed right after the trade, that we really don't know how much he benefitted from RFK's HR suppressing tendencies (but we will find out).


His home away splits don't suggest he was helped by RFK but OTOH the other parks in the NL east are picthes parks too, so it is hard to tell.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 12:30 PM
First off, all you have to do is listen to most other teams announcers and most of the dudes on ESPN to know that a good many of them don't have a clue what they're talking about. At this point I think it's become popular to pan the trade and everyone is riding the wave because it's easy to do.

I've also read some very thoughtful analysis done by folks at places such as BP and Rotoworld--observers who aren't clueless, talking heads--who have widely panned this trade. If this trade truly wasn't so one-sided, then surely someone, somewhere would come up with an analysis as such. The Reds overpaid for two middle relievers--that's essentially what this trade boils down to.


Secondly, most of these guys haven't watched Lopez play SS every night since last year. I have and by the AS break last year I was saying he needed to be moved to 2B. The Reds were never going to win with Lopez at SS and neither will any other team. That to me is the most telling part of this trade and it speaks volumes to what I feel Lopez' true trade value was. Minimal at best considering his agent and potential salary next year.

...but coupled with Kearns, he was certainly worth more than what we received back. If Lopez's trade value was minimal, Majewski's was less than that. Bray *might* turn out to be decent, and the rest of the throw-ins are non-factors. Lopez - Bray staright up seems about right to me.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:34 PM
His home away splits don't suggest he was helped by RFK but OTOH the other parks in the NL east are picthes parks too, so it is hard to tell. It could always turn out that his low HR rate was not because of RFK. I just can't seem to get away from his very troubling low K rate in combination with the high BB rate. Those are bad BPIs that are hard to hide from in the long term.

princeton
07-17-2006, 12:42 PM
I've also read some very thoughtful analysis done by folks at places such as BP and Rotoworld--observers who aren't clueless, talking heads--who have widely panned this trade. If this trade truly wasn't so one-sided, then surely someone, somewhere would come up with an analysis as such.

no offense intended, but is there a point at which you think for yourself?

it's logical to point out that it's two middle relievers for two strong offensive starters. Who wants to get on the other side of that right now? That's how analysts who can't pick out talent need to spin it, and they could very well be correct.

it's also logical to say that the Reds know that they overpaid gravely but felt that they will win more games now and in the near future, and have extreme confidence in their ability to pick talent given their recent track record.

so, we'll see. Lopez and Kearns will put up numbers in nonpressure situations, which suits them.

but if our pitching improves and if our team wins games, then maybe we lose the deal talent-wise, but get what we wanted. I'm cool with that.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:46 PM
but if our pitching improves and if our team wins games, then maybe we lose the deal talent-wise, but get what we wanted. I'm cool with that.There is little doubt the Reds got at least marginally better in the pen.

The real questions are

how much did they hurt the offense?
will the improvement in pitching offset the decrease the offense?
did they really get any better defensively with the trade?

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 12:46 PM
the return's not enough, but Krivsky didn't waste Kearns's talent. So far, he's done that on his own.



The guy reeks of underachievement. He's brittle. His numbers have done nothing but degenerate from his rookie season (in both healthy and "unhealthy" seasons). He's slow. He's really not a very good defender--most metrics place him about average as a defender. He's only gotten less pop as he ages (which is a horrible sign for a hitter--think Sean Casey). He goes through horrific Aaron Boone-ish slumps. He doesn't walk nearly as much as he used to.

His game has severely deteriorated. It's sad, really. I was a huge defender of the guy. But I want no part of giving this guy a long-term contract. It was time for him to go.

Lopez, on the other hand....

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 12:47 PM
did they really get any better defensively with the trade?

Yes. It's not even close.

But you shouldn't make trades centered on defense.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:50 PM
Yes. It's not even close.Objective data suggest the improvement at SS with Clayton is very slight. I really like Denorfia's speed in the OF(after seeing 2 games this weekend) he is quite a bit faster than I thought but there really isn't enough objective data to judge the Kearns/Denorfia RF swap.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 12:51 PM
no offense intended, but is there a point at which you think for yourself?

Yes--immediately after the trade was announced, I was completely against it. But don't take my word for it, spend 5 minutes searching the Board and see it for yourself. The opinions of others have been widely discussed as reasons for/against the trade, my comments were only in that context.

Additionally, as has been pointed out numerous times, no one is arguing that the Reds didn't improve their pitching with this trade. They certainly did. But many people--myself included--feel that they vastly overpaid to do it. And I don't need a columnist or TV pundit to tell me so, I figured it out about 5 minutes after it was announced.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 12:52 PM
Objective data suggest the improvement at SS with Clayton is very slight. I really like Denorfia's speed in the OF(after seeing 2 games this weekend) he is quite a bit faster than I thought but there really isn't enough objective data to judge the Kearns/Denorfia RF swap.

Denorfia is clearly a defensive improvement in right. I'm just going to be a luddite on this front: I don't need a "defensive metric" to tell me otherwise.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 12:53 PM
it's also logical to say that the Reds know that they overpaid gravely but felt that they will win more games now and in the near future, and have extreme confidence in their ability to pick talent given their recent track record.

Arroyo, Phillips, and David Ross say yes.

Cody Ross, Joe Mays, and Esteban Yan say no.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 12:53 PM
Denorfia is clearly a defensive improvement in right. I'm just going to be a luddite on this front: I don't need a "defensive metric" to tell me otherwise.

Faster tha Kearns, too, which will help make up the ever-increasing gap in the number of balls Junior can't get to.

ochre
07-17-2006, 12:56 PM
http://www.harmonize.com/aninsidestraight/CardsA.jpg
All in.
http://angelingo.usc.edu/vol03issue01/life/graphics/g_howtoplay3.jpg

flyer85
07-17-2006, 12:56 PM
Denorfia is clearly a defensive improvement in right. I'm just going to be a luddite on this front: I don't need a "defensive metric" to tell me otherwise.Having been to a lot of game this year I will say this. To be able to judge the relative spped of OFs you need to be there in person. WIth Kearns in RF and Jr in CF the difference in speed of Kearns/Jr while not great was noticeable. After this weekend I can safely say the difference in speed between Denorfia/Jr is dramatic and somewhat jawdropping.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 12:56 PM
The guy reeks of underachievement. He's brittle. His numbers have done nothing but degenerate from his rookie season (in both healthy and "unhealthy" seasons). He's slow. He's really not a very good defender--most metrics place him about average as a defender. He's only gotten less pop as he ages (which is a horrible sign for a hitter--think Sean Casey). He goes through horrific Aaron Boone-ish slumps. He doesn't walk nearly as much as he used to.

His game has severely deteriorated. It's sad, really. I was a huge defender of the guy. But I want no part of giving this guy a long-term contract. It was time for him to go.


Since you're piling up the rationalizations, don't forget "he was fat, has big ears, and didn't send me a card on my birthday."

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 12:56 PM
His home away splits don't suggest he was helped by RFK but OTOH the other parks in the NL east are picthes parks too, so it is hard to tell.


NL East Park HR Index 03-05

Turner Field 0.95
Citizen's Bank 1.21 (04-05)
Shea Stadium 0.84
Dolphins Stadium 0.81
RFK Stadium 0.77

Three outta five NL East parks are tough on the home run, including Majewski's former home park, and a fourth also leans to pitcher friendly for the long ball.

We'd have to dip into individual gamelogs to be certain, but right there is a plausible explanation for Majewski's exceedingly low HR rate ... a rate I'm not sure he can maintain while in a Reds uniform.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 01:00 PM
Since you're piling up the rationalizations, don't forget "he was fat, has big ears, and didn't send me a card on my birthday."


Rationalizations? Jeez, I wish that's all they were.

princeton
07-17-2006, 01:01 PM
Arroyo, Phillips, and David Ross say yes.

Cody Ross, Joe Mays, and Esteban Yan say no.

three guys from scrap heap to key part. what batting average would you be expecting?

I often ask myself (being unusually talented and vain), whether I could have done better. and the answer (being unusually talented and vain), is, but of course. But not this year. Phillips was a no-brainer, Arroyo I think that I do (I did cyber-Rule V him once) but maybe I blink because of that K rate. But who the heck goes for a David Ross?

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:01 PM
Denorfia is clearly a defensive improvement in right. I'm just going to be a luddite on this front: I don't need a "defensive metric" to tell me otherwise.
Taking the one outfielder that has shown some inclination towards being able to get to balls that other adequate major league players can get to and replacing him with a guy that might, maybe be marginally better isn't a substantive improvement. For all the cajones this deal supposedly shows, where are the cajones it would take to move Griffey to left and Dunn to first that would have really shown dividends?

I think your bias against Kearns has led you to some extreme positions that become fairly difficult to defend. Kearns is, even though so many here want to call him an abject failure, an above average outfielder both offensively and defensively. And that's pre-peak years.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 01:04 PM
even though so many here want to call him an abject failure, an above average outfielder both offensively and defensively. And that's pre-peak years.

The people arguing that he's an "abject failure" are wrong. However, those arugeing that he's a baseball demi-God worthy of pulling in 4 or 5 stud pitchers by himself are also wrong.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 01:04 PM
However, those arugeing that he's a baseball demi-God worthy of pulling in 4 or 5 stud pitchers by himself are also wrong.

Show me one person who has argued anything close to that.

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:05 PM
Show me one person who has argued anything close to that.
no kidding.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 01:05 PM
Kearns is, even though so many here want to call him an abject failure, an above average outfielder both offensively and defensively. And that's pre-peak years.


Only marginally above average. But he'll get "well-above average" cash in arbitration. And I really, really distrust "defensive" metrics; if I have a "bias," as you put it, it's against defensive metrics, not Kearns. I dislike Kearns for verifiably objective reasons.

And as I said earlier, you don't make trades to "marginally" improve defense. So no argument there; honestly I'm not sure I could be more clear about that position.

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:06 PM
Only marginally above average. But he'll get "well-above average" cash in arbitration. And I really, really distrust "defensive" metrics; if I have a "bias," as you put it, it's against defensive metrics, not Kearns. I dislike Kearns for verifiably objective reasons.
you loathe above average performance?

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 01:09 PM
you loathe above average performance?

No, I loathe marginally above-average performance descending from excellence in a rookie year who will make a ton of money in arbitration that won't be warranted and could be found for a 1/3 of said cost among the scrap heap of outfielders drifting around baseball year in and year out. :)

Incidentally, Kearns has been above average in only three of his five MLB seasons so far...for what it's worth.

Ravenlord
07-17-2006, 01:12 PM
Kearns has slighty above average range and a superb arm, but sometime iffy accuracey with it.

NL average OPS for a RF: 813
Kearns OPS: 827

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 01:15 PM
Show me one person who has argued anything close to that.

Please! There are just as many people overvaluing AK that are under valuing him in the wake of this trade. All of them are flat wrong. The truth, as it usually is, is somewhere in the middle.

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:21 PM
Please! There are just as many people overvaluing AK that are under valuing him in the wake of this trade. All of them are flat wrong. The truth, as it usually is, is somewhere in the middle.
the truth is also not two mediocre middle relievers.

The truth is hastily making a trade for an outside chance at making the playoffs in a year in which the team isn't properly situated to really take advantage of that opportunity. It's a similar phenomenon to adding an all century player and lovingly wrapping him in roughly a quarter of the teams aggregate salary following a '99 season and selling it as securing the teams place in the playoffs for the next decade.

This trade may end up working out. That doesn't mean it was a wise decision.

pedro
07-17-2006, 01:24 PM
I'm of the opinion that Krivsky has been dangling Kearns since he got hear so he probably had a good idea of what his true value was.

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:24 PM
No, I loathe marginally above-average performance descending from excellence in a rookie year who will make a ton of money in arbitration that won't be warranted and could be found for a 1/3 of said cost among the scrap heap of outfielders drifting around baseball year in and year out. :)

Incidentally, Kearns has been above average in only three of his six MLB seasons so far...for what it's worth.
personally, I loathe fluke injuries and the vitriol associated with the criticisms of players affected by said injuries as they work their way back.

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 01:25 PM
Even though the discussion has steered away from Majewski's value and more onto Kearns' value, I'm still amazed by the misperception that Majewski is more than just merely an average reliever.

Here's more data on the parks Majewski played the bulk of his Nats games in compared to the parks he'll play the bulk of his Reds games in:


NL East Park HR Index 03-05

Turner Field 0.95
Citizen's Bank 1.21 (04-05)
Shea Stadium 0.84
Dolphins Stadium 0.81
RFK Stadium 0.77




NL Central Park HR Index 03-05

Minute Maid 1.12
Miller Park 1.12
Wrigley Field 1.12
Great American 1.17
PNC Park 0.88

No data for new Busch

This is startling.

I showed earlier in the thread how four outta five NL East parks were pitcher friendly in giving up home runs, and that could play a role in Majewski's stellar lifetime HR/9 rate. However, based on his K/9 and BB/9 rates, Majewski desperately needs his stellar HR/9 rate to maintain effectiveness.

Check out the comparison in HR index for NL East parks compared to NL Central parks. I'm beginning to think it's moreso when rather than if Majewski loses some magic off his HR/9 rate.

I'm now exceptionally skeptical if the Reds did their statistical homework in evaluating Majewski, or perhaps more accurately, if they did any type of proper statistical homework when evaluating Majewski.

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:26 PM
I'm of the opinion that Krivsky has been dangling Kearns since he got hear so he probably had a good idea of what his true value was.
There are different degrees of true value. This type of midseason trade is one degree.

flyer85
07-17-2006, 01:28 PM
I'm now exceptionally skeptical if the Reds did their statistical homework in evaluating Majewski, or perhaps more accurately, if they did any type of proper statistical homework when evaluating Majewski.I suggested that right after the trade went down. I somehow doubt there was a lone dissenting voice in the wilderness calling out this trade.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 01:36 PM
This trade may end up working out. That doesn't mean it was a wise decision.

So if it's a "wise decision" that doesn't work it, that's cool?

Lot's of people go for what body politick calls "the wise decision". That doesn't mean that it's the "right decision". How many years of big offense/horrible pitching have we had now? And how we looking there?

To me this trade marks a "sea change" of the philsophy of the team that I think is desperatly needed. You can have all the OPS in the world. It only takes one more run by the other team to make that irrelvent. It's a move away from killer offense/horrible pitching to ok offence/good pitching and I'm all for it.

Is this trade perfect? Of course not, nor do I think it's the magic bullet that will cure our ailes. But it's a step in the right direction. Will more adjustments been needed. Of course! No team is ever done building, tinkering, adjusting. This trade doesn't happen in a vacume so all of these projections of this or that happening will be invalid once other variables change.

Let's say you have stocks worth millions. But you decide that you're tired of working and want to buy a little place on a lake in your favorite part of the country. The price is higher than what you want to pay but the value of the lake, setting, property is worth it to you to get out of the rat race. So you over pay by a significant amount.

Some people would say you didn't get enough in return for your money, you are unwise and foolish and got taken by the realestate agent. Others would argue that because you have an excess of money in the bank (the stocks), more than you currently need to live (a position of strength) that it's worth it to overpay to get what it is you want (the house by the lake, out of the rat race). Your neighbor will think you are stupid to give up all that money for a dump by a lake but because it's important to you, it was worth every penny.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 01:37 PM
personally, I loathe fluke injuries and the vitriol associated with the criticisms of players affected by said injuries as they work their way back.


It really shouldn't have taken Kearns as long it did to "work his way back."

Vitriol? You're better than that, ochre. You know darn well that I staunchly defended Kearns through the whole DanO thing last season. It's not vitriol. It's business. And Kearns is not worth what he'll make next season. Not in the least.

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:44 PM
Nothing is 100%, so generally if one does the wise thing in situations like this it will play out in the end. Of course being that nothing is 100%, even that could be wrong.
Do you go all in on an inside straight? It might work, but generally the odds are against it.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 01:46 PM
Nothing is 100%, so generally if one does the wise thing in situations like this it will play out in the end. Of course being that nothing is 100%, even that could be wrong.
Do you go all in on an inside straight? It might work, but generally the odds are against it.

I don't know if this is directed at me, but I take the nuanced position that the trade stunk, yet it was time to get rid of Kearns.

Call me John Kerry. (Proudly).

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:50 PM
It really shouldn't have taken Kearns as long it did to "work his way back."

Vitriol? You're better than that, ochre. You know darn well that I staunchly defended Kearns through the whole DanO thing last season. It's not vitriol. It's business. And Kearns is not worth what he'll make next season. Not in the least.
Kearns isn't perfect. I've been somewhat disappointed with his progress myself, but most of that is probably founded in having bought too much into the hype and expecting him to follow the Dunn progression, as those two have been forever linked through the system.

Vitriol was probably too harsh a word, but it just seems like you have been on him pretty hard this season.

My problem is less with trading Kearns than it is with getting back, almost exclusively, middle relief. Particularly when there are plenty of other glaring needs with this team. Acquiring middle relief at this stage screams to me "We're going for it this year". I think that's the type of knee-jerk activity that can set a team back. I am not sure that it is Krivsky that is doing it either. If Castellini is demanding these types of moves, are we really much better off than before, even if Krivsy is really talented?

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:51 PM
I don't know if this is directed at me, but I take the nuanced position that the trade stunk, yet it was time to get rid of Kearns.

Call me John Kerry. (Proudly). that one was directed towards Ltlabner's response to one of my prior posts. I should have quoted, sorry.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 01:53 PM
Nothing is 100%, so generally if one does the wise thing in situations like this it will play out in the end. Of course being that nothing is 100%, even that could be wrong.
Do you go all in on an inside straight? It might work, but generally the odds are against it.

If they make no other moves and expect this to propell them into the WS this year and contention for years to come then I agree with you that it could be considered simular to going all in on an inside straight.

But based on Kriv's track reccord and BC's desire to win I don't think they are sitting still for the rest of the year. This is part of the process of building a team that can (hopefully) be competitive (however we care to define that) in 2006 and winning championships and WS in years to follow.

This is, IMO part of a process so to act as if this is a singular move is, well, unwise.

ochre
07-17-2006, 01:55 PM
If they make no other moves and expect this to propell them into the WS this year and contention for years to come then I agree with you that it could be considered simular to going all in on an inside straight.

But based on Kriv's track reccord and BC's desire to win I don't think they are sitting still for the rest of the year. This is part of the process of building a team that can (hopefully) be competitive (however we care to define that) in 2006 and winning championships and WS in years to follow.

This is, IMO part of a process so to act as if this is a singular move is, well, unwise.
I hope you are right. The one thing I see this trade potentially providing is a couple of pieces that maybe even more overvalued at the deadline should things go south. I just don't see what else they have that can be moved to really put the Reds over the top this year without jeapordizing the future. Maybe Larue?

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 02:00 PM
LaRue, Javy, Freel, Aurila, Hatte, Jr, Wise, Castro, Clayton are all viable trading chips in my opinion. Different trade values certinally, but trade values none the less. And trades don't just come from major league players so why can't AAA, AA be considered?

registerthis
07-17-2006, 02:03 PM
Please! There are just as many people overvaluing AK that are under valuing him in the wake of this trade. All of them are flat wrong. The truth, as it usually is, is somewhere in the middle.

I haven't seen a single person overvalue Kearns on this board. I myself--probably one of the most vocal critics of this trade on this board--said that I'd be fine with a Kearns - Bray deal straight up. That's hardly "overvaluing".

Again, I ask you to present evidence of people overvaluing AK.

ochre
07-17-2006, 02:04 PM
LaRue, Javy, Freel, Aurila, Hatte, Jr, Wise, Castro, Clayton are all viable trading chips in my opinion. Different trade values certinally, but trade values none the less. And trades don't just come from major league players so why can't AAA, AA be considered?
They can be. Keep in mind, however, that this system is still fairly threadbare. That's what I was getting at by the "jeapordizing the future".

It's also a part of the problem with trading two young starting position players in the Reds current scenario. There is very little, particularly in the infield, viable position player talent in the system.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 02:07 PM
It's also a part of the problem with trading two young starting position players in the Reds current scenario. There is very little, particularly in the infield, viable position player talent in the system.

And it's placing a HUGE reliance on Phillips being able to continue producing at the rate he currently is for the forseeable future.

If Phillips and Deno are unable to be producers in 2007, watch out.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 02:14 PM
Again, I ask you to present evidence of people overvaluing AK.

More than one person in the course of these many posts has claimed we could have gotten all of the National players for AK alone. That would be over valuing.

More than one person in the course of these many posts has made the claim that AK will continue to improve, is going into his prime years and will be a upgrade to most any NL team. All while ignoring that inspite of having the position to himself this year, and being healthy he's only been able to be good but not the fantastic superstar we've been promissed. That would be over valuing.

More than one person in the course of these many posts has over looked his legtimate weaknesses by ignoring his K rate, dismissing his many trips to the DL as the result of freak accidents, and the nagging issues about his work ethic and desire to improve beyond what he is currentlty. That is over valuing.

More than one person in the course of these many posts has postulated that the offence will collapse, in part, because of the loss of AK. That is over valuing him.

I think AK is a good ballplayer. Don't count me in the crowd arguing that he's an abject failure. But at this point I don't think he's a great ballplayer and unless he can really take off in the comming years woln't be.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 02:16 PM
If Phillips and Deno are unable to be producers in 2007, watch out.

If AK and Lopez were here and played as they are now in 2007 we'd be in the same place we are now and have been for several years. And that ain't good.

ochre
07-17-2006, 02:21 PM
If AK and Lopez were here and played as they are now in 2007 we'd be in the same place we are now and have been for several years. And that ain't good.
A couple of middle relievers don't really change that landscape significantly.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 02:22 PM
A couple of middle relievers don't really change that landscape significantly.

Then it's a big flat wash isn't it? Not the horrific mistake some have claimed.

ochre
07-17-2006, 02:28 PM
Then it's a big flat wash isn't it? Not the horrific mistake some have claimed.
only if you think the midseason trade market is identical to the offseason trade market in regards to position players.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 02:31 PM
only if you think the midseason trade market is identical to the offseason trade market in regards to position players.

Which, of course, assumes that AK and Lopez will have the same or higher trade values come the off season. No injuries. No slumps. No getting tired in a strech run. No more defensive errors.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 02:47 PM
Bray and Gary Majewski were part of the eight-player trade with Washington last week, along with shortstop Royce Clayton, in a move designed to shore up what had been a struggling Reds bullpen. The acquisition of Bray and Majewski isn't meant to push to the side those remaining relievers - namely David Weathers, Todd Coffey and left-hander Kent Mercker - but give them an opportunity to succeed by staying better rested.

This is from cincypost.com. An interesting point. Is there any worth to having other options in the bullpen, thus keeping the other guys fresher, especially Coffey?

registerthis
07-17-2006, 02:49 PM
More than one person in the course of these many posts has claimed we could have gotten all of the National players for AK alone. That would be over valuing.

Hyperbole, you think?


More than one person in the course of these many posts has made the claim that AK will continue to improve, is going into his prime years and will be a upgrade to most any NL team. All while ignoring that inspite of having the position to himself this year, and being healthy he's only been able to be good but not the fantastic superstar we've been promissed. That would be over valuing.

Really? A starting right fielder who plays above average defense and is OPS'ing 10th best in all of baseball wouldn't be an improvement for most teams? I'm not sure I follow.


More than one person in the course of these many posts has over looked his legtimate weaknesses by ignoring his K rate, dismissing his many trips to the DL as the result of freak accidents, and the nagging issues about his work ethic and desire to improve beyond what he is currentlty. That is over valuing.

You have a much different definition of "over-valuing" than I do. Suffice to say, no one's *ignoring* his K rate, they simply don't place as high a value on K's as others do. That's not over-valuing. The "freak accidents" are just that--freak accidents. That's not over-valuing. The work eithic issue likely has some validity, and I haven't heard anyone here going out of their way to defend his work ethic, or lack thereof. Still, the fact remains that a right fielder on pace to hit 28 HRs, knock in 90 runs and play good defense would be an improvement for most teams.


More than one person in the course of these many posts has postulated that the offence will collapse, in part, because of the loss of AK. That is over valuing him.

Nope. What has been postulated is that relying on guys like Deno and Clayton to pick up the slack of an offense that had been performing below expectations could be a recipe for trouble. And depending on how Deno plays out, the trade created one of not two holes in our lineup that didn't exist before.

That's not over-valuing. And, at any rate, it's a far, far cry from your earlier contention that some here think Kearns could fetch "4 to 5 stud pitchers by himself." No one comes close to thinking that.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 02:55 PM
More than one person in the course of these many posts has claimed we could have gotten all of the National players for AK alone. That would be over valuing.

More than one person in the course of these many posts has made the claim that AK will continue to improve, is going into his prime years and will be a upgrade to most any NL team. All while ignoring that inspite of having the position to himself this year, and being healthy he's only been able to be good but not the fantastic superstar we've been promissed. That would be over valuing.

More than one person in the course of these many posts has over looked his legtimate weaknesses by ignoring his K rate, dismissing his many trips to the DL as the result of freak accidents, and the nagging issues about his work ethic and desire to improve beyond what he is currentlty. That is over valuing.

More than one person in the course of these many posts has postulated that the offence will collapse, in part, because of the loss of AK. That is over valuing him.

I think AK is a good ballplayer. Don't count me in the crowd arguing that he's an abject failure. But at this point I don't think he's a great ballplayer and unless he can really take off in the comming years woln't be.

The bold part is the essence of it, I think. People expected greatness immediately and were disappointed when Kearns wasn't able to achieve it at the ripe old age of 26.

Sounds like certain people ridiculously overvalued Kearns at some point and just got tired of waiting.

Paul O'Neill redux?

westofyou
07-17-2006, 02:57 PM
Sounds like certain people ridiculously overvalued Kearns at some point and just got tired of waiting.

Paul O'Neill redux?

Kal Daniels redux?

Wasn't Duncan an under performing switch hitting SS with errors in his past? wasn't Leary just the 1988 comeback player of the year for a team in a pitchers park?

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 02:57 PM
The bold part is the essence of it, I think. People expected greatness immediately and were disappointed when Kearns wasn't able to achieve it at the ripe old age of 26.

Sounds like certain people ridiculously overvalued Kearns at some point and just got tired of waiting.

Paul O'Neill redux?

O'Neill had more fighting spirit in his eyelashes than Kearns has in his entire body, soul included.

Poor comparison.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 02:59 PM
People expected greatness immediately and were disappointed when Kearns wasn't able to achieve it at the ripe old age of 26.

Yet the biggest knock against the two bullpeners we got in the trade is their performance. That's the biggest argument I'm hearing; that we didn't get enough in return. Yet, neither of them is at the ripe old age of 26.

So we should give AK and Lopez time to really acheive "greatness" but these two guys we got back are done, over, cooked?

It cuts both ways.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 03:05 PM
That's not over-valuing. And, at any rate, it's a far, far cry from your earlier contention that some here think Kearns could fetch "4 to 5 stud pitchers by himself." No one comes close to thinking that.

Hyperbole, you think? ;)

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 03:21 PM
Yet the biggest knock against the two bullpeners we got in the trade is their performance. That's the biggest argument I'm hearing; that we didn't get enough in return. Yet, neither of them is at the ripe old age of 26.

So we should give AK and Lopez time to really acheive "greatness" but these two guys we got back are done, over, cooked?

It cuts both ways.

I've stayed out of the whole Kearns debate, because for me, this isn't as much about Kearns as it is about part of the return heading into our bullpen. I didn't have much opposition to the premise of trading Kearns/Lopez for pitching help. Lopez was a mess defensively at shortstop, and I believe his 2005 power numbers had some anomaly in them (home/road HR splits are telling for his lost power this season). But he was developing more plate discipline, a better walk rate, better OBP skills and was still a good trading chip. Kearns, who was a slightly above average corner outfielder, was also a decent trading chip.

But it's not about Kearns, nor is it about Lopez. It's really about Majewski for me.

We know what Majewski is, and there will be few good surprises about him in a Reds uniform, except for him somehow carrying over his good luck with his performance. Instead, there's a laundry list of potential bad surprises with him. Krivsky likely thought he was getting a B+/B relief pitcher from Washington in Majewski, whereas instead he actually got a C+/C relief pitcher. His K rates and BB rates tell us that. His HR rates in a home park and home division chock full of pitcher friendly home run hitting parks tell us that. I just flat out don't think the Reds' brass did their homework with this guy. Tack on the fact that Majewski was horribly abused while in Washington, and I really don't think the Reds' brass did their homework with him. It wouldn't surprise me if Majewski tanks down the stretch anyway just due to pure work overload.

The Reds think they are getting a certain value/performance out of Majewski, but in reality, they likely will not get that value/performance out of him they believe they traded for. And that's my main beef with this entire deal. If Majewski was really the B+/B relief pitcher that Krivsky thinks he is, then I'm less opposed to the trade. I'd still be opposed to it a bit, but it'd set much easier for me.

This is what Majewski's gotta do to maintain his Nats' level of performance with the Reds:

Improve his K/9 and/or his BB/9 significantly while maintaining his HR/9 (not likely)
OR
Maintain his K/9, BB/9 and HR/9 while also maintaining his BABIP luck (not likely)

I like Bray. I like his age, and I like his track record of being able to miss bats throughout the minor leagues. I'm willing to give Krivsky a type of wait-and-see approach with Bray while hoping that he sees something in him that others do not see. That doesn't mean I like him to be a Billy Wagner/B.J. Ryan type of guy, but I do like him, and I'm willing to give the organization the benefit of the doubt right now.

But not with Majewski, no way. His solid performance throughout his career has been due to good luck and a nice HR/9 rating that's likely as shiny as it is because of the ballparks he's pitched the bulk of his games in. Now those pitcher friendly home run hitting ballparks are much less rampant, and it's only a matter of time before that good luck runs out.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 03:24 PM
Cyclone...thank's for a great post. While we may not be in total agreement, I do appreicate this post and the argument you've laid out here. I think it's the best "con-trade" post I've read...rational, reasonable, and without crazyness.

MartyFan
07-17-2006, 03:26 PM
2006 BABIP:

Majewski: .262
Bray: .314

2005 BABIP:

Majewski: .288

2006 DIPS:

Majewski: 4.33 (1.21 DIPS Rate)
Bray: 3.98 (1.02 DIPS Rate)

2005 DIPS:

Majewski: 3.79 (1.29 DIPS Rate)

PECOTA Projected PERA: PERA is a pitcher's ERA as estimated from his peripheral statistics (EqH9, EqHR9, EqBB9, EqK9). Because it is not sensitive to the timing of batting events, PERA is less subject to luck than ERA, and is a better predictor of ERA going-forward than ERA itself. Like the rest of a pitcher's equivalent stats, his PERA is calibrated to an ideal league with an average PERA of 4.50

2006 Majewski: 4.28 PERA
2007 Majewski: 4.42 PERA
2008 Majewski: 4.48 PERA
2009 Majewski: 4.17 PERA
2010 Majewski: 4.32 PERA

Results for Bray are Minor League Equivalents based on his minor league performance.

2006 Bray: 5.11 PERA
2007 Bray: 4.90 PERA
2008 Bray: 4.21 PERA
2009 Bray: 4.74 PERA
2010 Bray: 4.56 PERA

PECOTA Projected Wins Above Replacement Player: Wins Above Replacement Player, level 1. The number of wins this player contributed, above what a replacement level hitter, fielder, and pitcher would have done, with adjustments only for within the season.

2006 Majewski: 1.3 WARP
2007 Majewski: 1.2 WARP
2008 Majewski: 1.2 WARP
2009 Majewski: 1.1 WARP
2010 Majewski: 1.0 WARP

2006 Bray: 0.8 WARP
2007 Bray: 0.7 WARP
2008 Bray: 1.0 WARP
2009 Bray: 0.5 WARP
2010 Bray: 0.8 WARP

2006 Kearns: 3.8 WARP
2007 Kearns: 3.9 WARP
2008 Kearns: 4.1 WARP
2009 Kearns: 3.6 WARP
2010 Kearns: 3.5 WARP

2006 Lopez: 3.5 WARP
2007 Lopez: 3.6 WARP
2008 Lopez: 3.6 WARP
2009 Lopez: 3.5 WARP
2010 Lopez: 3.1 WARP

And yes, those WARP numbers include defensive contribution.

Marginal Value Above Replacement Player: MORP is modelled based on the actual behavior of recent free agent markets, and accounts for non-linearity in the market price of baseball talent (e.g. teams are willing to pay more for one 6-win player than two 3-win players).

As listed in a player's PECOTA card, a player's MORP includes the major league minimum salary, estimated to be $325,000 for 2006. Further, in a player's Five-Year Forecast, we assume salary inflation of 5% per year through 2010.

For 2006, a player's MORP is estimated as follows: 485000*WARP + 216000*(WARP^2) + 325000

2006 Majewski: $1,375,000
2007 Majewski: $1,300,000
2008 Majewski: $1,375,000
2009 Majewski: $1,250,000
2010 Majewski: $1,200,000

2006 Bray: $875,000
2007 Bray: $775,000
2008 Bray: $1,075,000
2009 Bray: $750,000
2010 Bray: $1,075,000

2006 Kearns: $5,350,000
2007 Kearns: $5,900,000
2008 Kearns: $6,500,000
2009 Kearns: $5,625,000
2010 Kearns: $5,625,000

2006 Lopez: $4,600,000
2007 Lopez: $5,125,000
2008 Lopez: $5,325,000
2009 Lopez: $5,475,000
2010 Lopez: $4,825,000

Now let's add that all up...

Kearns + Lopez: $54,350,000
Majewski + Bray: $11,050,000

And here's the combined projected WARP:

Kearns + Lopez: +36.2 WARP
Majewski + Bray: +9.6 WARP

Yeah. That's right. Over the next five years, the Reds have given up potentially 26.6 WARP and over $40 million dollars of projected value in this deal. That's a projection of over 5 Wins per season. Estimate, the Reds just lost about 4 Wins per season versus the league average. Worst thing is that Kearns' WARP projections have him at a high of 500 PA through 2010. He pulls 600 PA for those seasons and we're back at a five Win gap. Bill Bray could become Billy Wagner and he wouldn't make that up.

Probability tells us they just traded two productive starting MLB players for the equivalent of the decent versions of Kent Mercker and Dennys Reyes plus the opportunity to coin-flip. Consistent, productive, high-level MLB relief pitching may be expensive but neither Majewski or Bray are that. Equitable relief pitchers are available in the offseason for a much much lower price. Brendan Harris offers very little. Royce Clayton is a Tony Womack who plays on the other side of Second Base. The A-ball pitcher is an 1% chance in what should have been a no-brainer return for the Reds with a good GM at the helm.

Wayne Krivsky (and Bob Castellini) just pullled their pants down to let every other GM know they can be had and had good. To properly evaluate this trade we have to create levels of stupid. The Reds lost wins with this return. They got nothing to secure the future. They failed to maximize their return on the last two MLB chips they can reasonably trade. They wanted to improve the bullpen. Fine. But they did it at a Run value loss which equates a Win value loss. They wanted to improve the defense but didn't.

I've stated before that I wouldn't yet pin Krivsky as a two-dimensional thinker in a three-dimensional world. Well, this one clinches it and I'm not sure he's even at a two-dimensional level. This trade is the equivalent of selling your house so that you can afford to re-shingle your garage.

Action for action's sake is just as crippling as what Dan O'Brien did. In this case, it's even worse.

I'd be kidding you if I told you I understood VORP, WARP and all the things associated with it...what I think you have left out of your math an projections how much would a similar arm to Bray and "Magic" cost this team in cash...additionally how many games would be blown by the arms currently in our system and formerly used as part of our BP...you are also replacing some of those numbers with the production from denorfia and also wonder how many games an improved defense saves us by not having lopez out at SS?

I don't know the answer to these questions or even how to arrive at them but I think to be fair in looking at this deal you have to consider all of those things.

VR
07-17-2006, 03:31 PM
I got this nice Red car that I race every week. Heck, it's qualifying time the next few weeks for the big year end finale.

It's nice and shiny. Big ol' engine in it, I've had it for years. Problem is, my tires. Now, for years I've raced it with worn out tires, hoping my big engine will over compensate. I always start out really well, but by the time the race is half over, I start fading, and fading fast, because my tires just can't handle the stress.

Well this year is a bit different. I still have one of the best engines in the race, but I actually got some newer back tires. Gosh, it feels really good. I find myself going into the stretch run a lot more confidently. Problem is, my front tires our more worn out than they've ever been. I can have a great start to any race, better than ever with those improved back tires. But I got no confidence my front ones will hold up. They've blown up on me several times, and I've finally decided to get me some new ones.

Problem is, there's been a tire shortage for some time now. I found some old bald ones in the offseason, but they were worse than the ones I had last year. I talked to some of the other racers, and it turns out they don't have any extra I can get on the cheap. Well, I guess I'll just keep on racing with my old front tires, knowing I'm gonna crash and burn.

Then a buddy says, "why don't you trade some of that horsepower for a couple newer tires". Well that's a stupid idea. Everyone knows I got the most horsepower in the race, why would I give that up? Then he tells me I can rev up my engine all I want, but if I don't upgrade those tires, it will end in a horrific crash like it has the last 6 years. After talking to those other racers, it seems horsepower is a lot easier to come by than tires......

Well, we had our first race this weekend. Horsepower was down a bit, but man did those tires work great! I didn't realize it would help, but the suspension is a lot better too! Maybe my buddy is right after all? It's not always about the purdiest car, it's about having all the parts in working order. Even if it doesn't seem like a fair trade.

Turns out most of the other racers have known this for years. :dunno:

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 03:32 PM
[QUOTE]This is what Majewski's gotta do to maintain his Nats' level of performance with the Reds:
Improve his K/9 and/or his BB/9 significantly while maintaining his HR/9 (not likely) [QUOTE]

Why do you say this is unlikely? He's young and has room for improvement no? Having Power, Browning and Soto around has had an improvement on other pitchers with either mechanics changes, different approaches or even different pitches altogher.

westofyou
07-17-2006, 03:32 PM
I got this nice Red car that I race every week. Heck, it's qualifying time the next few weeks for the big year end finale.

It's nice and shiny. Big ol' engine in it, I've had it for years. Problem is, my tires. Now, for years I've raced it with worn out tires, hoping my big engine will over compensate. I always start out really well, but by the time the race is half over, I start fading, and fading fast, because my tires just can't handle the stress.

Well this year is a bit different. I still have one of the best engines in the race, but I actually got some newer back tires. Gosh, it feels really good. I find myself going into the stretch run a lot more confidently. Problem is, my front tires our more worn out than they've ever been. I can have a great start to any race, better than ever with those improved back tires. But I got no confidence my front ones will hold up. They've blown up on me several times, and I've finally decided to get me some new ones.

Problem is, there's been a tire shortage for some time now. I found some old bald ones in the offseason, but they were worse than the ones I had last year. I talked to some of the other racers, and it turns out they don't have any extra I can get on the cheap. Well, I guess I'll just keep on racing with my old front tires, knowing I'm gonna crash and burn.

Then a buddy says, "why don't you trade some of that horsepower for a couple newer tires". Well that's a stupid idea. Everyone knows I got the most horsepower in the race, why would I give that up? Then he tells me I can rev up my engine all I want, but if I don't upgrade those tires, it will end in a horrific crash like it has the last 6 years. After talking to those other racers, it seems horsepower is a lot easier to come by than tires......

Well, we had our first race this weekend. Horsepower was down a bit, but man did those tires work great! I didn't realize it would help, but the suspension is a lot better too! Maybe my buddy is right after all? It's not always about the purdiest car, it's about having all the parts in working order. Even if it doesn't seem like a fair trade.

Turns out most of the other racers have known this for years. :dunno:


Race Car spelled backwards is race car.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 03:35 PM
O'Neill had more fighting spirit in his eyelashes than Kearns has in his entire body, soul included.

Poor comparison.

"Fighting spirit" aside, the Reds had great expectations for O'Neill and gave up on him too soon. There's your potential comparison.

princeton
07-17-2006, 03:40 PM
seems odd to use a guy's strength (HR allowed) as a weakness

me, I didn't like Arroyo's K/9 in 2005. But the Reds seemed to like something about him

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 03:42 PM
I got this nice Red car that I race every week. Heck, it's qualifying time the next few weeks for the big year end finale.

It's nice and shiny. Big ol' engine in it, I've had it for years. Problem is, my tires. Now, for years I've raced it with worn out tires, hoping my big engine will over compensate. I always start out really well, but by the time the race is half over, I start fading, and fading fast, because my tires just can't handle the stress.

Well this year is a bit different. I still have one of the best engines in the race, but I actually got some newer back tires. Gosh, it feels really good. I find myself going into the stretch run a lot more confidently. Problem is, my front tires our more worn out than they've ever been. I can have a great start to any race, better than ever with those improved back tires. But I got no confidence my front ones will hold up. They've blown up on me several times, and I've finally decided to get me some new ones.

Problem is, there's been a tire shortage for some time now. I found some old bald ones in the offseason, but they were worse than the ones I had last year. I talked to some of the other racers, and it turns out they don't have any extra I can get on the cheap. Well, I guess I'll just keep on racing with my old front tires, knowing I'm gonna crash and burn.

Then a buddy says, "why don't you trade some of that horsepower for a couple newer tires". Well that's a stupid idea. Everyone knows I got the most horsepower in the race, why would I give that up? Then he tells me I can rev up my engine all I want, but if I don't upgrade those tires, it will end in a horrific crash like it has the last 6 years. After talking to those other racers, it seems horsepower is a lot easier to come by than tires......

Well, we had our first race this weekend. Horsepower was down a bit, but man did those tires work great! I didn't realize it would help, but the suspension is a lot better too! Maybe my buddy is right after all? It's not always about the purdiest car, it's about having all the parts in working order. Even if it doesn't seem like a fair trade.

Turns out most of the other racers have known this for years. :dunno:

Congratulations, you traded your headers for a pair of Michelin Agility P195/70SR14's ($65 apiece at Sears Tire Center).

Still feel like you got a good deal?

registerthis
07-17-2006, 03:43 PM
Hyperbole, you think? ;)

Touche. :)

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 03:44 PM
Just had a thought. This will come off as being smart alec and I don't mean it that way. This is a serrious question.

Why is it that K's from the offense are no big deal (ie. Dunn, Kearns), yet a pitcher who has a low K/9 number is considered bad?

dsmith421
07-17-2006, 03:45 PM
seems odd to use a guy's strength (HR allowed) as a weakness

me, I didn't like Arroyo's K/9 in 2005. But the Reds seemed to like something about him

I think the point is that Majewski's impressive HR/9 rate was earned in the expansive ballparks of the NL East and is likely to increase significantly pitching the majority of his game in HR-friendly parks like GABP, Wrigley, Miller etc. Therefore, Majewski's greatest asset may in fact be fool's gold for the Reds.

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 03:46 PM
Why do you say this is unlikely? He's young and has room for improvement no? Having Power, Browning and Soto around has had an improvement on other pitchers with either mechanics changes, different approaches or even different pitches altogher.

Regarding his HR/9 rates likely climbing, see this post earlier that got lost in the Kearns shuffle ...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1069194&postcount=117

Regarding his K/9 and BB/9 rates, it's history and track record.

He's yet to log a major league season with a K/9 rate at even 6, and his BB/9 rate has actually been going up since he arrived. His minor league K/9 rate was just over 8, with a minor league BB/9 rate just over 4.

Now that doesn't mean he can't somewhat improve his K/9 and BB/9 rates in a Reds uniform. The problem, however, is any improvement in those two areas will likely be offset by his BABIP luck returning to normal. His DIPS ERA must be accounted for, even if he's been able to slide under them in the past. Or, even if he's still somehow able to maintain his BABIP luck and slide under his DIPS ERA, he still has to deal with the HR/9 rate issue with his new home park and the ballparks in the wonderful NL Central.

The odds are just stacked against him.

That 2.93 ERA over a full season like 2005 is full of lady luck, and without that same lady luck that 2.93 ERA is a pipe dream for it to happen again. Unfortunately that 2.93 ERA is the B+ relief pitcher that Krivsky thought he was getting. Sure, Majewski could pull it off over a one or two month stretch, but it's unlikely he can do it for a full season without the help of lady luck again. Instead, I think we're looking at a high 3/low 4 ERA out of Majewski over the long haul, and that's a C+ relief pitcher (NL reliever average ERA was 4.20 last season).

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 03:46 PM
seems odd to use a guy's strength (HR allowed) as a weakness

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1069194&postcount=117

EDIT: dsmith421 identified it above.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 03:48 PM
I hope Kearns and Lopez do great, and I see no reason why they won't over the next four or five years, but at the same time I see the players that the REDS got in this trading giving us more value over a 7-8 year stretch than Kearns and Lopez will have given us over those same years.

Again,...

The FANS of the Cincinnati REDS organization, along with the employees of the organization are extremely fortunate and blessed to have this new ownership and management group in place.

Happy Days Are Here Again!....year after year after year after year after year.

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 03:49 PM
Just had a thought. This will come off as being smart alec and I don't mean it that way. This is a serrious question.

Why is it that K's from the offense are no big deal (ie. Dunn, Kearns), yet a pitcher who has a low K/9 number is considered bad?

Don't mean to get off topic, but I'll point you to an excellent post by RedsManRick on this very subject just a few weeks ago:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1021824&postcount=37

registerthis
07-17-2006, 03:53 PM
Just had a thought. This will come off as being smart alec and I don't mean it that way. This is a serrious question.

Why is it that K's from the offense are no big deal (ie. Dunn, Kearns), yet a pitcher who has a low K/9 number is considered bad?

I'm no Sabretician, but from what i've discerned this is what I've got: There are pitchers who can be successful while inducing a high amount of contact (a flyball pitcher in a pitcher's park, or a ground ball pitcher with great infield defense), but the law of averages as it corresponds to BABIP will generally catch up with them. The pitcher who misses more bats will generally be more successful over the long term, even if some pitchers get BABIP lucky for periods of time.

And it's not that K's are no big deal, it's that they're no bigger deal than a groundout or pop fly. Aside from special circumstances (productive outs, double plays, etc.) a strikeout is but another way for a hitter to make an out. As Dunn shows, a hitter can have a high K rate yet still be very productive. Where you run into trouble is when a hitter has a high K rate as well as low SLG and OBP numbers, because at that point something is obviously flawed--or you're Juan Castro. ;)

dsmith421
07-17-2006, 03:56 PM
[...] at the same time I see the players that the REDS got in this trading giving us more value over a 7-8 year stretch than Kearns and Lopez will have given us over those same years.

The FANS of the Cincinnati REDS organization, along with the employees of the organization are extremely fortunate and blessed to have this new ownership and management group in place.



You're allowed to believe this obviously, but until you can back up this optimism with the same kind of objective analysis Cyclone has posted earlier, or with reliable scouting information, then I'm taking your opinion with a grain of salt.

I'm glad Castellini is the owner, too. Krivsky had my support until this trade. I am not convinced that "happy days are here again." The Reds have flattered to deceive or flat out sucked for the majority of my life, and until I see a sea change in organizational philosophy (i.e., Narron canned or brought to heel, this obsession with useless 35-year-olds ended, garbage like Mays told to pound salt), I'm not getting my hopes up.

Is your capitalization of FANS meant to imply that those questioning this trade are not supporters of the ballclub?

VR
07-17-2006, 04:15 PM
Congratulations, you traded your headers for a pair of Michelin Agility P195/70SR14's ($65 apiece at Sears Tire Center).

Still feel like you got a good deal?\


I think I overpaid. But I might finish the race for a change. My pride might suffer a bit, but it will be nice to be in the race with a few laps to go for a change, instead of watching from the pits.

Turns out those replacement Freel and Denorfia brand headers aren't gonna hurt my car's horsepower too much at all.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 04:43 PM
I think I overpaid. But I might finish the race for a change. My pride might suffer a bit, but it will be nice to be in the race with a few laps to go for a change, instead of watching from the pits.

No kidding. All this talk of overpaying igonres the bigger issue. We had really nice headers, engines, turbos, etc and it got us nowhere. We were sitting in our garage revving the engine. Big whoppie. And in todays market, you have to overpay to get the pieces to get your car to start moving.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 04:54 PM
No kidding. All this talk of overpaying igonres the bigger issue. We had really nice headers, engines, turbos, etc and it got us nowhere. We were sitting in our garage revving the engine. Big whoppie. And in todays market, you have to overpay to get the pieces to get your car to start moving.

Rationalization. You only have to overpay if you THINK you have to overpay.

And those tires are not the best quality.

Marc D
07-17-2006, 04:57 PM
No kidding. All this talk of overpaying igonres the bigger issue. We had really nice headers, engines, turbos, etc and it got us nowhere. We were sitting in our garage revving the engine. Big whoppie. And in todays market, you have to overpay to get the pieces to get your car to start moving.

Well if we are going to continue the car analogy...

If the car's been in the garage for 10 years whats a few more months? Then you trade your really nice headers for some other really nice parts and have a better overall car going foreward. This was simply losing any and all sense of patience and trading your nice headers for some cheap tires.

Sure, they'll get you out of the garage and down to the drag race but you aren't going to win anything once you get there. Now this winter you still haven't won a race and still have a car that still needs a ton of work but no money to spend on it.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 05:08 PM
Rationalization. You only have to overpay if you THINK you have to overpay.

No you overpay if the market dictates that you do so. If at the end of the trade deadline there are a slew of impact bullpen arms moved for chaff and cast off players then Kriv will have really screwed up and I'll have no problem saying that.


Sure, they'll get you out of the garage and down to the drag race but you aren't going to win anything once you get there. Now this winter you still haven't won a race and still have a car that still needs a ton of work but no money to spend on it.

But those "cheep tires" have a much better chance of getting you somewhere, than if you never left the garage in the first place.

And I don't think our cubard is bare either. We've got other trading chits left, and BC said he'd up payrol which isn't being considered in all of this either. Then we could get some super cool rich corinthian leather to go with those tires.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 05:11 PM
No you overpay if the market dictates that you do so.

Krivsky didn't have a gun to his head forcing him to make a deal. if the price for middle relief pitching is truly this high, then there's certainly an argument to be made that krivsky would have been fine standing pat.


We've got other trading chits left, and BC said he'd up payrol which isn't being considered in all of this either.

I thought one of the plusses for this deal was that the Reds would now have money to spend on FAs? I happen to agree that Cast is likely to be more open with the purse strings than Lindner, which is actually one of the reasons I DON'T support this deal.

Marc D
07-17-2006, 05:14 PM
But those "cheep tires" have a much better chance of getting you somewhere, than if you never left the garage in the first place.


My philosophy is to keep the car in the garage untill I build one that I know can win a race. Limping down to the track with no chance at winning anything, simply doesn't interest me.

ochre
07-17-2006, 05:21 PM
my deepest fear is that this move was driven by Castellini. It seems it was couple of days ago that he said something in the paper about promising to go for the gusto if they were still in the race in June. If he is meddling to that level, I have big concerns about the direction of this organization.

Of course I have nothing to substantiate any of this. Just a back of my mind kind of worry combined with some bad experiences with "we'll get it done no matter the cost" types.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 06:05 PM
I thought one of the plusses for this deal was that the Reds would now have money to spend on FAs? I happen to agree that Cast is likely to be more open with the purse strings than Lindner, which is actually one of the reasons I DON'T support this deal.

Check out my post from earlier today. The more money for FA argument as a good reason for the trade is not one I support.


My philosophy is to keep the car in the garage untill I build one that I know can win a race. Limping down to the track with no chance at winning anything, simply doesn't interest me.

But you don't know it will win the race until you get it out of the garage do you? Besides, I don't buy the "I'm paitent to wait another 5 years to win" argument one bit. Have you seen this board after one lost game...you'd of thought the end of the world happened. What about the casual fan? Do you think they'd sign onto another "let's rebuild" phase? Nope.

Let's get this car going and make adjustements as we go. Anybody can sit in their garage and tinker all day long, don't make them a good race car. It's only a race car by actually going out to race, making adjustments, having failures, improving, and then winning races.

M2
07-17-2006, 06:11 PM
But you don't know it will win the race until you get it out of the garage do you?

The Reds were already in the race. Seems to me what they've done is trade a good set of tires for some alternative fuel.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 06:35 PM
\


I think I overpaid. But I might finish the race for a change. My pride might suffer a bit, but it will be nice to be in the race with a few laps to go for a change, instead of watching from the pits.

Turns out those replacement Freel and Denorfia brand headers aren't gonna hurt my car's horsepower too much at all.

That was good....and you might even have enough left over to spin a few victory donuts on the infield.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 06:36 PM
The Reds were already in the race. Seems to me what they've done is trade a good set of tires for some alternative fuel.

That's actually a pretty good analogy.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 06:41 PM
Is your capitalization of FANS meant to imply that those questioning this trade are not supporters of the ballclub?

No, not at all. Anyone who comes to this board is among the most passionate of REDS FANS. It's great that so many care so much.

I've seen enough of Krivsky to believe "passionately" that the REDS farm system will be among the top third in the Majors by the beginning of the 2010 season, and that the REDS will have made the playoffs at least twice by then.

M2
07-17-2006, 06:43 PM
That's actually a pretty good analogy.

Thanks, though I am a trained professional.

Marc D
07-17-2006, 06:53 PM
But you don't know it will win the race until you get it out of the garage do you? Besides, I don't buy the "I'm paitent to wait another 5 years to win" argument one bit. Have you seen this board after one lost game...you'd of thought the end of the world happened. What about the casual fan? Do you think they'd sign onto another "let's rebuild" phase? Nope.

Let's get this car going and make adjustements as we go. Anybody can sit in their garage and tinker all day long, don't make them a good race car. It's only a race car by actually going out to race, making adjustments, having failures, improving, and then winning races.

You know from general experience that it takes a sub 10 second 1/4 mile to win. Your saying to sell the headers for the cheap tires, take our 15 second car on down anyway, lose and then sit back and say "yep, 15 seconds was too slow".

Also I have never seen anyone argue for competeing in another 5 years. 2007 to start then hit our stride in 2008/09 has always been my idea. Being a mediocre team in a bad league has many people, including our owner and GM it appears, fooled into thinking were a legit contender for something in 2006. BTW, Dan O was a proponent of competing while we rebuild as well.

Anyway, its done now. We are the proud new owners of some controversial tires so lets just see what happens. Personally I hope all these guys turn out to be studs because I don't want to have to start over with a new GM in a few years if this thing goes as far south as it could. Hopefully its a case of Kriv's brilliance being beyond our grasp, not a case where some are simply pointing out the emporer has no clothes.

RFS62
07-17-2006, 07:04 PM
it's logical to point out that it's two middle relievers for two strong offensive starters. Who wants to get on the other side of that right now? That's how analysts who can't pick out talent need to spin it, and they could very well be correct.

it's also logical to say that the Reds know that they overpaid gravely but felt that they will win more games now and in the near future, and have extreme confidence in their ability to pick talent given their recent track record.

so, we'll see. Lopez and Kearns will put up numbers in nonpressure situations, which suits them.

but if our pitching improves and if our team wins games, then maybe we lose the deal talent-wise, but get what we wanted. I'm cool with that.



This is exactly how I feel. Nobody is arguing that we didn't pay a lot more now than we would have had to in the offseason for the same talent.

If all you consider is the exchange rate on the deal, the Reds lose. And they know that.

I like VR's analogy about his race car a lot. I was discussing the deal a couple of days ago with a buddy and my analogy was one of a sinking ship.

That's what this team was before the deals started. A ship with holes in the hull, taking on water at an alarming rate. The bullpen was a gaping hole through which water was pouring in and taking us down.

We could have kept all our assets until the offseason when their exchange rate would have been better, but that effectively abandons any hope of contention this year.

And that would be OK with a lot of very knowledgable fans. The type of fans who post here. The type who follow the Reds no matter what.

But it wasn't OK with the casual fan, the guy who has to buy tickets this year for the business of baseball in Cincinnati to run. Castellini has said over and over that he's dedicated to being a contender this year. I don't think it's hyperbole. I think he's saying exactly what he means, and has been since the day he took control. And I for one like it.

I'm willing to pay a premium, even a completely outrageous premium, to keep the ship from sinking NOW. The guy who put up the money says he wants to stay in contention NOW.

We plugged the hole. And the arguments are very intelligent and persuasive that the plug isn't what we need and won't do the job and again, we WAY overpaid for the plug. But we're still in contention, and without the overpriced plug, we wouldn't be. We'd have more chips for later, but we sink now.

One thing that strikes me is it seems that a lot of people are acting like this will be the last deal we do. I don't see it. I see a relentless owner and GM who won't stop turning over cards until they get a winner. And I'll bet Castellini will pony up more cash, as he said he would, before the trade deadline, since we're still in contention.

Yes, we overpaid, if all you do is look at the deal in a vacuum. But the big picture is much more complicated. The BRAND of Cincinnati Reds is what's at stake. It's what Castellini has been trying and trying to revive since the day he took over.

The deal isn't perfect. But it's a damn sight better than sitting in our deck chairs sipping brandy as we congratulate ourselves for not overspending for that plug as we sink to the bottom this year. NOW.

If there's anything I believe, having seen the ACTION taken by this front office, it's that they're not done, and they won't stop until they bring us a winner.

So, I'm OK with the deal, overpaying and all, because I think it's one of a long line of more deals to come until these guys get it right.

What a freakin' change from past administrations. Finally a front office I'm proud of, instead of cringing at the sound of DanO or Marge or Bowden.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 07:07 PM
Yes, we overpaid, if all you do is look at the deal in a vacuum. But the big picture is much more complicated. The BRAND of Cincinnati Reds is what's at stake. It's what Castellini has been trying and trying to revive since the day he took over.

The deal isn't perfect. But it's a damn sight better than sitting in our deck chairs sipping brandy as we congratulate ourselves for not overspending for that plug as we sink to the bottom this year. NOW.

If there's anything I believe, having seen the ACTION taken by this front office, it's that they're not done, and they won't stop until they bring us a winner.

So, I'm OK with the deal, overpaying and all, because I think it's one of a long line of more deals to come until these guys get it right.

What a freakin' change from past administrations. Finally a front office I'm proud of, instead of cringing at the sound of DanO or Marge or Bowden.

BRAVO!!!!

SteelSD
07-17-2006, 07:30 PM
I'd be kidding you if I told you I understood VORP, WARP and all the things associated with it...what I think you have left out of your math an projections how much would a similar arm to Bray and "Magic" cost this team in cash...additionally how many games would be blown by the arms currently in our system and formerly used as part of our BP...you are also replacing some of those numbers with the production from denorfia and also wonder how many games an improved defense saves us by not having lopez out at SS?

I don't know the answer to these questions or even how to arrive at them but I think to be fair in looking at this deal you have to consider all of those things.

1. The defense isn't really improved- particularly at the SS position, where we now have three options and all of them lack anything resembling range. Narron's all about making the "routine" plays. Doesn't understand that making the "routine" plays might just be less important if you're watching catchable balls fly past you. Any additional defensive value Denorfia might possess is suppressed due to the fact that he's not replacing Griffey.

2. Any discussion of cash savings needs to assume at least two things: 1) That similar pitchers (performance, cost, etc.) weren't available and won't be in the future. 2) That Kearns and Lopez project to be untradeable commodities who represent sunk costs should they be signed long-term by the club. 3) That Majewski and Bray won't ever be paid more than the value they represent while with the club.

The Reds have now gone as all-in as they can unless they start touching their lower minors and/or swap a MLB starting pitcher for more talent. They have virtually nothing left of any value and if it is of value they can no longer afford to trade it. They've suppressed Larue's value. No one in the offseason would touch Rich Aurilia for a draft pick. He's done nothing to increase that value. DeWayne Wise is valueless. Juan Castro is a sunk cost as is Royce Clayton. Griffey might bring something, but considering his numbers and salary, it won't be much. Hatteberg might bring a Joe Randa-type return but Travis Chick part deux doesn't excite me one bit. Adam Dunn now IS the Reds offense and he's untradeable because of it.

Yet, we've got some fans who think that the Kearns/Lopez deal is some kind of grandmaster chess plan that will allow Krivsky to make move number 2 and 3 and...well, y'know. Problem is he's got nothing left he can afford to part with at this point that'll bring a return resembling reasonable. Without that, it's back to waiver wire bingo and low-ceiling high-priced dice rolls.

The options are unappealing. No. Scratch that. They flat out stink. Swap some junk for Reggie Sanders and/or Elmer Dessens or, even worse, Kyle Lohse. Ack.

ochre
07-17-2006, 07:41 PM
What a freakin' change from past administrations. Finally a front office I'm proud of, instead of cringing at the sound of DanO or Marge or Bowden.
Is it though? Sure, since it's different it looks better.

This front office appears to cringe at the actual tangible differences they could have made with the players on hand. Moving Griffey to a corner and Dunn to first, for example. There's some compunction in action. A decisive, poorly reasoned move is no more sound, due to the decisiveness, than poorly reasoned indecision is/was.

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 08:33 PM
Is it though? Sure, since it's different it looks better.

This front office appears to cringe at the actual tangible differences they could have made with the players on hand. Moving Griffey to a corner and Dunn to first, for example. There's some compunction in action. A decisive, poorly reasoned move is no more sound, due to the decisiveness, than poorly reasoned indecision is/was.

Not that it should come as any surprise, but according to Chris Dial's defensive system over at BTF, Griffey is once again the worst defensive center fielder in all of baseball this season. According to this metric, Griffey's defensive excellence is worth -21 runs above average over 150 games.

Ryan Freel, OTOH, would be worth +3 runs over 150 games.

NL Rankings (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defensive_rankings_by_position_and_league_200_inni ngs/)
AL Rankings (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defensive_rankings_by_position_american_league/)

Royce Clayton's at -2 runs, a definite improvement over Lopez, but not good enough to justify playing because of his putrid bat.

VR
07-17-2006, 10:04 PM
Not that it should come as any surprise, but according to Chris Dial's defensive system over at BTF, Griffey is once again the worst defensive center fielder in all of baseball this season. According to this metric, Griffey's defensive excellence is worth -21 runs above average over 150 games.

Ryan Freel, OTOH, would be worth +3 runs over 150 games.

NL Rankings (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defensive_rankings_by_position_and_league_200_inni ngs/)
AL Rankings (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/dialed_in/discussion/defensive_rankings_by_position_american_league/)

Royce Clayton's at -2 runs, a definite improvement over Lopez, but not good enough to justify playing because of his putrid bat.

I hope JN doesn't use this one.....EE will never play 3rd again. Richy Rich is about 70 runs higher
:nono:

Cyclone792
07-17-2006, 10:19 PM
I hope JN doesn't use this one.....EE will never play 3rd again. Richy Rich is about 70 runs higher
:nono:

That's when you just slide in Pinto's PMR from last season ;)

http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/012880.php

princeton
07-18-2006, 07:40 AM
I think the point is that Majewski's impressive HR/9 rate was earned in the expansive ballparks of the NL East and is likely to increase significantly pitching the majority of his game in HR-friendly parks like GABP, Wrigley, Miller etc. Therefore, Majewski's greatest asset may in fact be fool's gold for the Reds.

understood, but that's overthinking.

I think.

I'm a simpleton. To me, assets are always good things.

redsrule2500
07-18-2006, 01:55 PM
I'm glad Castellini is the owner, too. Krivsky had my support until this trade. I am not convinced that "happy days are here again." The Reds have flattered to deceive or flat out sucked for the majority of my life, and until I see a sea change in organizational philosophy (i.e., Narron canned or brought to heel, this obsession with useless 35-year-olds ended, garbage like Mays told to pound salt), I'm not getting my hopes up.

Useless 35 year olds? You must be joking. :bang: Just because they are 35 doesn't mean they suck, Aurilla is a great player, Clayton is average, and Griffey is a great player too.

I'm sick of people like you thinking "because they are older they suck" :rolleyes:

princeton
07-18-2006, 01:57 PM
Useless 35 year olds? You must be joking. :bang: Just because they are 35 doesn't mean they suck, Aurilla is a great player, Clayton is average, and Griffey is a great player too.

I'm sick of people like you thinking "because they are older they suck" :rolleyes:

how old are you?

oregonred
07-18-2006, 02:15 PM
One interesting note was that Bray had 45K/9BB in 31 innings pitched in AAA earlier this season. Concern was 5 HR's but that 13.06 K/9 and 5.00 K/BB ratio is pretty sick. Left handed, one month service time and he just turned 23... Hmmm.

Also taking out one early outing against the Rockies where he gave up 5 runs and 8 hits and his first 45 days in the bigs look like -- 22IP, 16H, 5 R 1HR, 8BB, 15K, 2.04 ERA. Assuming his K/9 trends up (no reason to think not) he could be lights out. Man I hope the Reds scouts were on the money with this guy. I can start to see why this guy didn't come cheap -- why would you ever move this kind of commodity without a serious return?

Getting Maj back to an acceptable pen workhorse level (~80 IP/season pace rather than the ~100IP the Nats had him on this season) seems key. I didn't realize how many pitches he'd actually thrown this season until someone pointed it out. A rookie reliever that posted 86IP in 79 games with a 2.93 ERA and .665 OPS is pretty intriguing in my book. (Agree, clearly Bray is the #1 asset obtained)

Agree one of the issues with relievers is small sample size -- which can cut both ways (BAA due to luck, Each HR given up looks huge, one blow-up hammers your ERA, etc.).

princeton
07-18-2006, 02:18 PM
One interesting note was that Bray had 45K/9BB in 31 innings pitched in AAA earlier this season. Concern was 5 HR's but that 13.06 K/9 and 5.00 K/BB ratio is pretty sick. Left handed, one month service time and he just turned 23... Hmmm.

Also taking out one early outing against the Rockies where he gave up 5 runs and 8 hits and his first 45 days in the bigs look like -- 22IP, 16H, 5 R 1HR, 8BB, 15K, 2.04 ERA. Assuming his K/9 trends up (no reason to think not) he could be lights out. Man I hope the Reds scouts were on the money with this guy. I can start to see why this guy didn't come cheap -- why would you ever move this kind of commodity without a serious return?

Getting Maj back to an acceptable pen workhorse level (~80 IP/season pace rather than the ~100IP the Nats had him on this season) seems key. I didn't realize how many pitches he'd actually thrown this season until someone pointed it out. A rookie reliever that posted 86IP in 79 games with a 2.93 ERA and .665 OPS is pretty intriguing in my book. (Agree, clearly Bray is the #1 asset obtained)

Agree one of the issues with relievers is small sample size -- which can cut both ways (BAA due to luck, Each HR given up looks huge, one blow-up hammers your ERA, etc.).

yep, he's the key.

that said, Ryan Wagner started out nice

oregonred
07-18-2006, 02:46 PM
yep, he's the key.

that said, Ryan Wagner started out nice

Yeah, whatever happened to that guy -- we should try to get him back ;)

Yep Bray could be a bit of a dice roll. They paid up for Bray but his value could skyrocket in the near future with success as a key setup man down the stretch. If we're going to roll the dice -- at least it's with a lefty and an arm drafted by the Expos in place of the Reds (pre-Nats/Bowden).

dsmith421
07-18-2006, 02:48 PM
understood, but that's overthinking.

I think.

I'm a simpleton. To me, assets are always good things.

I don't think making that call requires much analysis. Incumbent upon any front office who looks to acquire a player is making some prediction about how the player will perform given new surroundings.

Hell, this has gone on forever--AL GMs have always assumed a 0.5 increase in ERA, for example, when a pitcher moves from the Senior Circuit (an article in ESPN yesterday claims now they are using 1.5 as the benchmark--Papelbon's -1.00 ERA would look nice in the NL as a result).

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 02:48 PM
Bray is indeed something to be excited about. Majewski, OTOH, looks like a bullpen journeyman.

dsmith421
07-18-2006, 02:51 PM
Just because they are 35 doesn't mean they suck, Aurilla is a great player, Clayton is average, and Griffey is a great player too.

I'm sick of people like you thinking "because they are older they suck" :rolleyes:

I'm sick of Reds fans who think Aurilia is a "great player", that Clayton is even close to average, and that Griffey is still great (as a hitter maybe, but as a fielder...yecch) despite the fact that NO data supports those conclusions.

Given that I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about, I'm not going to address your implicit personal attack.

Ltlabner
07-18-2006, 02:54 PM
Getting Maj back to an acceptable pen workhorse level (~80 IP/season pace rather than the ~100IP the Nats had him on this season) seems key. I didn't realize how many pitches he'd actually thrown this season until someone pointed it out. A rookie reliever that posted 86IP in 79 games with a 2.93 ERA and .665 OPS is pretty intriguing in my book. (Agree, clearly Bray is the #1 asset obtained)

How much could Majic's workload have an effect on his K/9 ratio? If he was overworked in Washington but is able to come here and the work load is spread around more, is it possible that with the extra rest we could see some sort of rise in his K/9 and decrease in his BB/9?

And is it possible that being over worked has squewed his numbers over the last 2 years? Both of these are serrious questions, not an attempt to me a smart alec.

At the same time, perhaps spreading the work load around will also have a benefit on Coffey who's been run ragged this year.

The rest of the other bullpen guys...not sure if any amount of rest will help them since it's more of a tallent issue.

princeton
07-18-2006, 03:01 PM
I don't think making that call requires much analysis. Incumbent upon any front office who looks to acquire a player is making some prediction about how the player will perform given new surroundings.


if I understand correctly, then I think that you've made one thought too many. Big parks protect pitchers, but they protect groundball pitchers much less than they protect non-groundball pitchers. Conversely, groundball pitchers are most valuable to teams in little parks. Majewski is going to a place where he is better suited to impact-- if only his new shortstops weren't octagenerians

Roy Tucker
07-18-2006, 03:02 PM
Funny, but when explaining this trade to the spousal unit last night, I made a car analogy as well.

I told her Krivsky paid $2K over MSRP for a Chrysler van that can be had for dealer invoice in the off-season. But he had to have the Chrysler van *now* so he paid the premium price.

dsmith421
07-18-2006, 03:03 PM
if I understand correctly, then I think that you've made one thought too many. Big parks protect pitchers, but they protect groundball pitchers much less than they protect non-groundball pitchers. Conversely, groundball pitchers are most valuable to teams in little parks.

I see what you're saying--because he's predominantly been a GB guy, there aren't going to be that many FBs to find the stands anyway.

Fair enough.

Cyclone792
07-18-2006, 03:38 PM
if I understand correctly, then I think that you've made one thought too many. Big parks protect pitchers, but they protect groundball pitchers much less than they protect non-groundball pitchers. Conversely, groundball pitchers are most valuable to teams in little parks. Majewski is going to a place where he is better suited to impact-- if only his new shortstops weren't octagenerians

I can only buy this marginally that the move in parks will have so little effect on him that it's not worth glancing at. Of course ground ball pitchers are more valuable in smaller parks, but that doesn't mean we should totally ignore all the fly ball ramifications of moving into the park, even if there's slightly fewer fly balls.

Majewski serves up approximately one fly ball per every inning pitched (172 total fly balls). Serving up home runs is a defense independent action, but can most definitely be a ballpark dependent action.

Over a regular full season of workload predominantly with Washington, Majewski would give up only about four home runs. My concern is if that four turns into a seven or eight due simply to the change in ballparks, and right now I don't see any reason why it couldn't. That's a run prevention issue, and that's critical to examine.

You're right that Majewski's an asset, but if I'm acquiring an asset, I want to know the reasonable performance expectation to be gained from that asset.

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 05:59 PM
Funny, but when explaining this trade to the spousal unit last night, I made a car analogy as well.

I told her Krivsky paid $2K over MSRP for a Chrysler van that can be had for dealer invoice in the off-season. But he had to have the Chrysler van *now* so he paid the premium price.

"But it's a sweet van with shag carpeting and a strobe light, plus it's got a picture of a unicorn on the side."

I'm growing to loathe that car analogy, although the Chrysler van is probably the best example I've seen.

Ltlabner
07-18-2006, 07:51 PM
How much could Majic's workload have an effect on his K/9 ratio? If he was overworked in Washington but is able to come here and the work load is spread around more, is it possible that with the extra rest we could see some sort of rise in his K/9 and decrease in his BB/9?

Rojo
07-18-2006, 08:10 PM
How much could Majic's workload have an effect on his K/9 ratio? If he was overworked in Washington but is able to come here and the work load is spread around more, is it possible that with the extra rest we could see some sort of rise in his K/9 and decrease in his BB/9?

I'm guessing that's counter to why Krivsky got him. Majewski's optimal use is as a Scott Sullivan type -- 100 innings a year, lot's of rally killing double-plays.

M2
07-18-2006, 08:20 PM
I'm guessing that's counter to why Krivsky got him. Majewski's optimal use is as a Scott Sullivan type -- 100 innings a year, lot's of rally killing double-plays.

IMO he's a lot closer to being a John Riedling type than a Scott Sullivan type.

Rojo
07-18-2006, 08:54 PM
IMO he's a lot closer to being a John Riedling type than a Scott Sullivan type.

You might be right. I'd be happier with a higher k-rate. Having said that his rate is respectable for a groundballer and its been going up every year.

Cyclone792
07-18-2006, 09:46 PM
How much could Majic's workload have an effect on his K/9 ratio? If he was overworked in Washington but is able to come here and the work load is spread around more, is it possible that with the extra rest we could see some sort of rise in his K/9 and decrease in his BB/9?

Maybe so, maybe not. I don't recall seeing any research that shows if relief pitcher workload effects K rate, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's out there somewhere, perhaps buried in a Baseball Prospectus report somewhere.

A study of Majewski's gamelogs could show a hint for him, but there's likely to be sample size issues ...

Majewski 2005 Gamelogs (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Kmajeg0010022005.htm)
Majewski 2006 Gamelogs (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/gamelog?playerId=5427)

Like Rojo said, though, Majewski will likely be used often down the stretch, especially if we hang around and compete for a playoff spot.


You might be right. I'd be happier with a higher k-rate. Having said that his rate is respectable for a groundballer and its been going up every year.

I'm with M2 on him being more of a Riedling type of guy than a Scott Sullivan type of guy. Sullivan's career K/9 rate was 7.59. My opinion of Majewski would be quite a bit different/better if is K/9 rate was over the 7.5 mark.

Marc D
07-18-2006, 10:35 PM
Small sample sizes duely noted but since the trade:

Majewski 1.2 IP 3 ER
Bray 2 IP 1 ER
Denorfia 4/18 1 BB


Clayton 5/11 3 RBI

Not a good start for the 3 guys Kriv is gambling on but Clayton's been better than expected so far. Long way to go so we shall see what happens but I thought this would be the place to maybe keep track of the numbers as we go.