PDA

View Full Version : Quick poll: Do you like the Kearns/Bray trade?



REDREAD
07-14-2006, 10:07 AM
Wanted a quick poll to see how the board felt.

redsmetz
07-14-2006, 10:09 AM
Too early to say, but last night's game convinced me we need to do something to hold on to games we should be winning. It's growing on me.

goreds2
07-14-2006, 10:11 AM
Yes, pitching is the name of the game.

Jpup
07-14-2006, 10:12 AM
Wanted a quick poll to see how the board felt.

I'm somewhere between loving it and hating it. I can't make up my mind. I don't think it's near as bad as some people would like you to believe.

NJReds
07-14-2006, 10:17 AM
No. I don't like the idea of trading two young startering players for two middle relievers an A ball player and two spare parts.

If we had traded Kearns and Lopez to Detroit and received Guillen and Zumaya back, that's one thing; but that's not what happened here.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 10:20 AM
The Reds overpaid in terms in of talent. How well it works out will likely depend on Denorfia and how quickly they unload Clayton.

NJReds
07-14-2006, 10:21 AM
The Reds overpaid in terms in of talent. How well it works out will likely depend on Denorfia and how quickly they unload Clayton.

How well Denofria does is totally independent of the trade. You don't overpay in a deal to clear a space, IMO.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 10:23 AM
How well Denofria does is totally independent of the trade. You don't overpay in a deal to clear a space, IMO.maybe not but some of this trade will be judged by how well this team performs the remainder of the season, Denorfia is likely to have a large part in that since the deal cleared a spot for him.

EddieMilner
07-14-2006, 10:24 AM
I don't think the Reds overpaid, I think the issue is that pitching is extremely expensive at this point of the season. To get good pitching (with 20 teams still in it), is extremely difficult.

The Reds had a surplus of offense and needed help in the bullpen and on defense. I think it was a good trade, and it makes this team better.

Jpup
07-14-2006, 10:28 AM
the Reds could not afford to wait. The front office is hell bent on winning this year, they had to make a move like this to take a shot. That is why I can't be totally against it.

REDREAD
07-14-2006, 10:33 AM
I voted "hate it". The Reds blew all their trading chips for the near future on this deal. They WAY overpaid. Kearns or Lopez (plus Wagner) should've been enough to get this deal done.

Wayne just paid 20k over list price for a 4 wheel drive because the weather man is predicting snow tonight. He didn't look at the big picture. This move is going to cripple the franchise longterm, even if Bray and Maj pitch well.

Highlifeman21
07-14-2006, 10:34 AM
Mark me down for loving it.

1. We got 2 bullpen arms ages 26 and 23, and they both throw hard and have out pitches. That's a foreign concept for our bullpen.
2. We had an excess of OF. Of Kearns/Dunn/Griffey, Kearns was the easiest and most feasible to move. Hope you do well in the show, #19.
3. Lopez is a defensive blackhole. Offensively this year, he's showing last year was an outlier. Royce Clayton won't be on the roster next year. Hopefully we move Phillips over to SS, or else this trade kinda confuses me. Harris is a glorified role/back up IF, so he's not our future 2B.
4. We cleared up some money to either use now to make another move before the deadline, or we have more money to spend in the offseason.

Yesterday's trade most logically triggered the domino effect that is the new Cincinnati Reds. Let's see where we're at at opening day 2007 and go from there.

jesusfan
07-14-2006, 10:51 AM
I really liked this trade because obviously it makes our bullpen alot better, it's not everyday you see a 23 year old kid come up and throw scoreless innings in relief, trust me... Bray has filthy stuff, everyone will come to love him...
I also liked the trade because Denorfia is hitting .347 in AAA, those numbers scream "GIVE ME A CHANCE" I strongly feel he'll be a .290-.300 hitter in the majors... Slot him in RIght with Freel, feel the SS void with Clayton (guys he has 22 Doubles this year, he isnt that bad), Castro(Defensive wiz), and even Aurilia... Even though Phillips will move there in the offseason... I like our line-up alot still, defintely above-average...
1.Denorfia/Freel-RF
2.Phillips-2nd
3.Griffey Jr-CF
4.Encarnacion-3rd
5.Dunn-LF
6.Hatteberg/Aurilia-1st
7.Ross-C
8.Clayton/Castro-SS
9.Pitcher

flyer85
07-14-2006, 10:52 AM
An ESPN take on the deal - Keith Law (Before joining ESPN, Law spent 4½ years with the Toronto Blue Jays as a Special Assistant to the General Manager)


Do you think Jim Bowden took a little pleasure in thoroughly robbing the organization that fired him in 2003? If not, perhaps he should, because he just pushed the Reds to the back of the NL playoff queue, and in the process picked up three players who entered the Reds' organization while he was their GM.

The Nationals were widely expected to be sellers in the July trade market, and that may still come to pass, but in this deal, they took on more salary than they gave up. In exchange for a talented left-handed relief prospect and three spare parts, the Nationals just added an above-average corner outfielder, an above-average shortstop, and a talented right-handed relief prospect. Whether they choose to keep Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez or move them for younger talent, the Nationals won this deal in a rout.

Kearns frustrates a lot of people inside the game because of the frequency he racks up strikeouts. Look instead at what Kearns does well: plus power, plus patience, and plus defense in right with a good arm. He'll strike out a lot and may not always hit for average, but he's an above-average player in an outfield corner, and the Nationals have him under control through the end of 2008. He's very similar to Brad Wilkerson, but with the added sheen of having served as a Red while Bowden ran that club.

Lopez is in the same service-time class as Kearns, meaning that he too is eligible for free agency after 2008. Lopez is having a down year after his breakthrough in 2005, an All-Star caliber season during which he poked 23 homers and hit for average with a few walks, a few steals and erratic defense at short. Lopez is an athletic player who has above-average raw power and a good arm, but his makeup has always been an open question. Given the complete lack of anything resembling a big-league shortstop in the Washington system, however, Lopez is an immediate and substantial upgrade, and it's a good gamble that he'll return at least most of the way to his 2005 performance.

Ryan Wagner is a throw-in, which is a major fall from grace for a guy selected in the first round in 2003 and rushed right to the majors. Wagner had the best strikeout rate in Division I in his junior year at the University of Houston, but his command has been awful in the pros, partly the result of a slinging delivery that puts a lot of strain on his shoulder. Still, he has a plus fastball and a plus slider that can get a little sweepy when he gets around it; it's worth a shot to see if a change of scenery will help.

The jewel in the deal for the Reds is Bill Bray, who was highly touted as a first-round pick in 2004. Bray has an out-pitch slider with a hard, late break to go with an average fastball and good control. He closed in college and should develop into a setup man in the majors, but the odds of his doing so this year (his debut season in the majors) aren't great. He also has a history of back trouble, which limited him to just 40 innings in 2005.

The real problem here for Cincinnati is that the other players they acquired just aren't any good. Royce Clayton was once a defensive whiz who would hit just enough to be a contributor, but his offense is so bad today that he makes Rafael Belliard look like Cal Ripken at the plate. Since the start of the 2000 season, Clayton has hit .258/.313/.369. And his defensive abilities have declined, much as you would expect they would for a player moving through his late 30s. As a glove off the bench acquired at no cost, Clayton is still a questionable use of a spot on the 25-man roster, but if the Reds intend to give him any of the playing time freed up by the trade of Lopez, they're shooting themselves in the foot.

Gary Majewski has two average pitches in his fastball and slider, but no real out pitch, no weapon to use against left-handed batters, and below-average control. He has moderate sink on his fastball, which is important in Cincinnati's home park, but isn't enough to make him more than an 11th or 12th man on their staff. Brendan Harris is a utility player who isn't good defensively and who has never had much patience at the plate; he's a 4-A guy who won't find playing time in Cincinnati with Ryan Freel, Rich Aurilia, Brandon Phillips, Juan Castro, and now Clayton all on the roster.

The Reds' apparent strategy here -- trading some of their offensive depth for pitching help -- is sensible, but their specific choices here make no sense. I don't see any way in which trading two of the top 50 hitters in the league for questionable relievers helps the Reds. The most charitable analysis would say that they've acquired 50-60 better bullpen innings at the cost of 400-450 good plate appearances, but given the volatility of reliever performance and Majewski's wildness, there's a good chance that the Reds won't see any benefit in their pen as a result of this deal. Had the Reds traded some spare parts or even good prospects for Majewski and Bray, I could understand it, but they have probably now taken the league's second- or third-best offense and made it merely average.

The Nationals, on the other hand, acquired a lot more talent than they gave up, and in doing so acquired the trade's top two players, both of whom are under control through the end of 2008. Washington can go in two directions. The Nats can keep Kearns and Lopez with an eye toward contending in the next two years, which would require a lot more work. The alternative is to deal one or both of the players to try to acquire younger players whom they'd control beyond 2008; given their paltry farm system and the fact that the Mets look like they'll be a powerhouse over the next few seasons, dealing Kearns and Lopez -- both of whom would be among the most coveted players in the July trade market if they're made available again -- would be a sensible course of action.

redsmetz
07-14-2006, 10:54 AM
Yesterday's trade most logically triggered the domino effect that is the new Cincinnati Reds. Let's see where we're at at opening day 2007 and go from there.

I posted a thread yesterday about the Lee May trade which brought over Joe Morgan. It was ironic given what happened yesterday, but one poster noted that Bob Howsam recognized that his team had been assembled for old Crosley Field, he began with that trade to build a team for Riverfront Stadium.

I wonder if this is the beginning of such a "sea change" as well. Only time will tell.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 11:10 AM
Gary Majewski has two average pitches in his fastball and slider, but no real out pitch, no weapon to use against left-handed batters, and below-average control. He has moderate sink on his fastball, which is important in Cincinnati's home park, but isn't enough to make him more than an 11th or 12th man on their staff.
This guy clearly hasn't seen our BP in action much.


I don't like this trade much at all. But it seems alot of us have sipped from the Kriv KoolAid.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:17 AM
I don't like this trade much at all. But it seems alot of us have sipped from the Kriv KoolAid.without a doubt. At best the team has taken a sizeable offensive hit, for a very slight(if any) defensive improvement and a marginal pitching bump. Neither Majewski or Bray is a sure thing to be good and help the Reds in the 2nd half.

RedEye
07-14-2006, 11:25 AM
I hated this trade when I first saw it. I had to keep rubbing my eyes to make sure I was seeing the names we got in return correctly. If we had just traded Kearns OR Lopez + Wagner for Majewski and Bray, then I would be all for it, but I just don't understand how Kriv can rationalize giving up two 26 year-old, above average position players for a stockpile of relief help. Worst of all, I think this might portend more painful changes, because I imagine Kriv is still in the market for a starter as well. We may ultimately end up with an outfield of Deno-Griff-Freel, because it wouldn't surprise me if Dunn is dealt for that pitcher really soon. I'm starting to think that Kriv is of the school that thinks you only pay the big bucks for pitching, pitching and more pitching. As soon as he can get the Milton, Griffey and Dunn contracts off the books, I would imagine we'll have a rag-tag offense of high OBP guys to go with a large investment in pitching. I didn't think I'd say this so soon, folks, but I think we might look a lot more like the Minnesota Twins in a few years. And that might not necessarily be a bad thing.

Brian
07-14-2006, 11:33 AM
It's pretty easy to sit here today and say the Reds overpaid, but the truth of the matter is, until we see more trades for middle relief, we don't have a clear picture of the market. With so many teams in the WC race, or even the West division races, it's a sellers market. This trade was made out of necessity in a bad market. There's probably little else Kriv could have done, like I said, we'll see what others pay over the next two weeks.

flyer85
07-14-2006, 11:42 AM
It's pretty easy to sit here today and say the Reds overpaid, but the truth of the matter is, until we see more trades for middle relief, we don't have a clear picture of the market. It doesn't matter about the market. There is a really good chance that with the subtractions and additions from the trades the Reds are worse today than they were yesterday. If the goal is to get better for a playoff run it seems that this move was in the wrong direction.

Falls City Beer
07-14-2006, 11:44 AM
It doesn't matter about the market. There is a really good chance that with the subtractions and additions from the trades the Reds are worse today than they were yesterday. If the goal is to get better for a playoff run it seems that this move was in the wrong direction.

The deal probably doesn't help at all in the near term and kills the team in the long term.

Brian
07-14-2006, 11:52 AM
Flyer - You're welcome to think that, but I think you're wrong. An argument can be made that they should have gotten more, I wish they got more, but don't know if they could have. But an argument that they got worse? Most wanted Denorfia up here and most would argue that the Reds have enough RF options that the loss of Kears doesn't hurt that badly, if at all. The loss of Lopez hurts offensive production a little, but we know Narron was not happy with his switch hitting abilities, defense and at times baserunning. I agree that Clayton is no solution, and too wish he wasn't included, but he was and it looks like he'll get some starts at SS. Next year though, I think we look better with B-Phil at SS and Freel or whoever else materializes at 2B. We also won't have two large salaries, though Kriv says it had nothing to do with dollars. Would you be this sad if they used the money saved to go sign Zito or some other front-line pitcher in the off season?

Razor Shines
07-14-2006, 11:54 AM
I don't know how much stock I put in that guy who wrote that article. He didn't even mention the 5th guy we got, Thompson, who is a pitching prospect. How quickly did he bang out that article?

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 11:55 AM
I don't know how much stock I put in that guy who wrote that article. He didn't even mention the 5th guy we got, Thompson, who is a pitching prospect. How quickly did he bang out that article?
Thompson is a very marginal prospect, even though only 20, due to 2 arm injuries since deing drafted.

Razor Shines
07-14-2006, 11:56 AM
Thompson is a very marginal prospect, even though only 20, due to 2 arm injuries since deing drafted.
That wasn't my point.

REDREAD
07-14-2006, 11:58 AM
. Would you be this sad if they used the money saved to go sign Zito or some other front-line pitcher in the off season?

Hi Brian,
The problem I have with the "save money" argument is that Kearns and Lopez were not bad contracts that were tough to unload. They were very marketable talents. I'm not saying that they were hall of famers that we could trade for Cy Young award winners, but just 2 years ago, the Indians offered the choice of Cliff Lee, Westbrooke, or another guy for Kearns alone.
My main point is that Kearns and Lopez could've easily been traded in the offseason for better talent, thus freeing up the cash for FAs and bringing better returns. I mean, if we traded Dunn tommorrow for another reliever, that also frees up cash, but it hurts the team longterm, just as the Kearns/Lopez giveaway did.

Think about if last season someone proposed trading Lopez for Bray. They would've been laughed off the board. Lopez has had a bad start, but he's got the tools and talent to rebound.

Kearns and Lopez could've been traded for a lot more this offseason. In contrast, if the Reds chose to shop Maj and Bray this offseason, they wouldn't even come close to getting what they paid for them.

This move only makes sense if it gives the Reds a playoff appearance this year. It's a huge, huge risk.

dabvu2498
07-14-2006, 11:59 AM
That wasn't my point.
Well, he may have not wanted to waste any more bytes in his computer or time on his brain about a marginal prospect.

RedsNeck
07-14-2006, 12:04 PM
Kearns was an above average OF but he can't pitch and I think Majewski and Bray are being short changed by many. As crazy as it sounds Clayton is an offensive upgrade against lefites(OPSing .858) to Felipe's sub .600 and he won't throw games away with his D. I'll admit Lopez is a much better hitter vs righties. What I like most about this deal is that the 2 guys we got for the pen aren't your usual stop gap fodder but at 23 & 26 and not FA eligible until 2011 at the earliest they could anchor our relief core for years to come. As for the present I feel much more comfortable trusting Majewski and Bray to protect a 6-3 lead in the 7th and 8th than depending on Kearns and Lopez to bash us to a 10-9 comeback after yet another blown lead.

boognish
07-14-2006, 12:20 PM
Hi Brian,
The problem I have with the "save money" argument is that Kearns and Lopez were not bad contracts that were tough to unload. They were very marketable talents. I'm not saying that they were hall of famers that we could trade for Cy Young award winners, but just 2 years ago, the Indians offered the choice of Cliff Lee, Westbrooke, or another guy for Kearns alone.
My main point is that Kearns and Lopez could've easily been traded in the offseason for better talent, thus freeing up the cash for FAs and bringing better returns. I mean, if we traded Dunn tommorrow for another reliever, that also frees up cash, but it hurts the team longterm, just as the Kearns/Lopez giveaway did.

I don't like this trade...but remain on the fence. I am having a hard time because I do not feel that WK can be held responsible for not dealing Kearns 2 years ago, or whenever his value was higher, nor can he really be held responsible for not dealing Lopez in the offseason--Krivsky really didn't have an offseason, because MLB dragged their feet approving the new ownership group, and we all know O'brien was too petrified to do ANYTHING; 2 years ago was on his watch.

I agree that Kearns should have brought a higher return, but Krivs made a gamble that AK wouldn't be able to maintain a clean bill of health for a full season, and struck while the iron was, well, lukewarm. The only parts of the deal I do not like at all are the fact that Clayton was apparently brought in as though he has some value...and will receive 250 PA the rest of the way. Or, if you prefer, 78 non-outs, and I think a better throw-in than Harris could easily have been attained.

Still, I can't agree that this is a "win now" move. Check out Bray's OPS away from RFK. Small sample size, but we need to hope that it is not representative. Another thing I think is that in trades of positions players for 'penners, the team getting the 'penners will almost surely be the loser based on runs created vs. runs saved, unless the position players are the type of utility guys Krivs and Narron love so well.

reds1869
07-14-2006, 02:38 PM
I like it. Lopez is a horrible defensive fielder; anyone who says otherwise hasn't watched him much. Kearns is an average hitter who has never put up more than 20 homeruns. While he has a cannon his range in RF is very poor. Both of these guys have high stock right now. Krivsky is gambling that: 1)this year is normal for Felo, not last year and 2)Kearns will never develop into what we once thought he would. Sell high.

While the Nats got the best of this if you view it on a value to value basis, I don't think that is a good way to look at a trade. The Reds got what they needed and so did the Nats. You must give value to get value. The Reds are about the same offensively with the platoon of Freel/Deno in RF and Aurilia/Castro/Clayton at SS. They are now a heck of a lot better defensively and better pitching wise. The Reds have lost 12 games due to bullpen collapses this year. Where would they be in the standings right now with good relief? People have said this is a "win now" trade, and I think they are right. Kearns and Lopez are no more than slightly above average players with great potential. But potential doesn't win ball games, and I for one am glad to se a Reds GM geting help for now alongside some decent prospects. The Reds are dying for pitching and the only players they would part with for it just got it. Is it the best? No. But i's a heck of a lot better than the geriatric playpen out there right now.

pedro
07-14-2006, 02:44 PM
I'd go with a third choice.

3. I'm not in love with the return but something had to be done and I'm not very upset about losing Lopez and kearns.

CrackerJack
07-14-2006, 03:09 PM
I'd go with a third choice.

3. I'm not in love with the return but something had to be done and I'm not very upset about losing Lopez and kearns.

Pretty much feel the same way here.

If nothing else it'll be interesting to see what Bray and Magic do for the BP now and what Deno will be like as an every day player. That I do look forward to, versus watching more of Kearns and Lopez disappoint and underachieve every other year.

Benihana
07-14-2006, 04:12 PM
Hi Brian,
The problem I have with the "save money" argument is that Kearns and Lopez were not bad contracts that were tough to unload. They were very marketable talents. I'm not saying that they were hall of famers that we could trade for Cy Young award winners, but just 2 years ago, the Indians offered the choice of Cliff Lee, Westbrooke, or another guy for Kearns alone.
My main point is that Kearns and Lopez could've easily been traded in the offseason for better talent, thus freeing up the cash for FAs and bringing better returns. I mean, if we traded Dunn tommorrow for another reliever, that also frees up cash, but it hurts the team longterm, just as the Kearns/Lopez giveaway did.

Think about if last season someone proposed trading Lopez for Bray. They would've been laughed off the board. Lopez has had a bad start, but he's got the tools and talent to rebound.

Kearns and Lopez could've been traded for a lot more this offseason. In contrast, if the Reds chose to shop Maj and Bray this offseason, they wouldn't even come close to getting what they paid for them.

This move only makes sense if it gives the Reds a playoff appearance this year. It's a huge, huge risk.

I agree I think the Reds did not get as good of a return as they could have for Kearns and Lopez. However that said, I don't think this is a terrible trade. REDREAD, your argument doesn't hold because people's values are obviously ever-changing. JimBo (and almost everyone on this board) refused to trade Pokey Reese for Ken Griffey Jr. six years ago, yet we turned around and unloaded him two years later for Luke Hudson. Just because a player at one time was worth A doesn't mean he will be worth >A later. I really liked FeLo, but it was becoming increasingly apparent that last year was a career year for him, and he could no longer play SS with his poor defense. Now if he's a SS, FeLo still has decent offensive numbers. However as a 3B or a 2B, those numbers start to be very pedestrian. Kearns was completely expendable with Denorfia/Freel ready to step in, although I do think maybe we could have gotten a better prospect or SP in return. However, the players acquired allow us to stay competitive this year, without mortgaging the future. Would anyone on this board have rather seen us jettison Bailey, Votto, Bruce or Wood for these guys? I wouldn't. The White Sox are about to trade Garcia or Vazquez for Aaron Heilman, a very similar bullpen guy to the guys we got. This is simply the market for bullpen help these days, so we could sit and accept our .500 ballclub or actually go out and try to improve it, giving up from an excess to acquire help at our most gaping hole (as even further evidenced by last night's game.)

On another note, does anyone know if there's any chance they make Bray into a starter for next year or the year after? Or is he simply the new "closer of the future"?

flyer85
07-14-2006, 04:16 PM
I agree I think the Reds did not get as good of a return as they could have for Kearns and Lopez. to that we will never know the answer for sure. :laugh:

Tornon
07-14-2006, 04:17 PM
I'm undecided right now.. I feel the right people were moved I just don't know if we got enough for them although having not heard of Bray until yesterday I'm already starting to love him. I trust that Krivsky, with his experience, if he could have gotten the same return for just Kearns or just Lopez would have done it. He's not stupid.

Brian
07-14-2006, 05:00 PM
Hi Brian,
The problem I have with the "save money" argument is that Kearns and Lopez were not bad contracts that were tough to unload. They were very marketable talents. I'm not saying that they were hall of famers that we could trade for Cy Young award winners, but just 2 years ago, the Indians offered the choice of Cliff Lee, Westbrooke, or another guy for Kearns alone.
My main point is that Kearns and Lopez could've easily been traded in the offseason for better talent, thus freeing up the cash for FAs and bringing better returns. I mean, if we traded Dunn tommorrow for another reliever, that also frees up cash, but it hurts the team longterm, just as the Kearns/Lopez giveaway did.

Think about if last season someone proposed trading Lopez for Bray. They would've been laughed off the board. Lopez has had a bad start, but he's got the tools and talent to rebound.

Kearns and Lopez could've been traded for a lot more this offseason. In contrast, if the Reds chose to shop Maj and Bray this offseason, they wouldn't even come close to getting what they paid for them.

This move only makes sense if it gives the Reds a playoff appearance this year. It's a huge, huge risk.

I totally agree with your thoughts here, Kriv said it wasn't about the money, but that had to be a factor. The two of them will make $10 Mil+ total next year, no getting around that. Cast wants to go for it, they're not that far away, on paper. So yes, it is a risk and they did pay a high price, not sure they overpaid though, given the market.

registerthis
07-14-2006, 05:03 PM
Flyer - You're welcome to think that, but I think you're wrong. An argument can be made that they should have gotten more, I wish they got more, but don't know if they could have.

Then you don't make the trade--it's very simple.

if I decide I want a ham sandwich for lunch, and walk down to the deli only to discover that ham sandwiches are $150, I'll simply decide to hold off on buying the sandwich.

Not only did Krivsky buy the sandwich, he left a tip.

gonelong
07-14-2006, 05:07 PM
Then you don't make the trade--it's very simple.

if I decide I want a ham sandwich for lunch, and walk down to the deli only to discover that ham sandwiches are $150, I'll simply decide to hold off on buying the sandwich.

Not only did Krivsky buy the sandwich, he left a tip.

If you haven't eaten since 1995 then you might be willing to give $150 for the sandwhich, <mmm ... ham> especially if you are not sure if the sandwhich will be available again tomorrow ... or something. :)

GL

Redmachine2003
07-14-2006, 06:02 PM
Undecited. If the Reds make the playoffs or if all the young kids develop then this trade works out for the Reds but right now I am not impressed

bottom_feeder
07-15-2006, 01:50 AM
This trade just set our team back 2 or 3 years. Enjoy the illusion of contending while it lasts, the buzz is going to wear off soon.

crazybob60
07-15-2006, 03:32 AM
I voted as undecided still as of right now and really I believe that is how it will stay for me probably for years to come. I don't think that the actual players involved will decide the outcome of this trade for the Reds....for the Nats it will but for the Reds it will not, I believe what will tell is if the players that replace Kearns and Lopez on the field and in the batters box produce better than Lopez and Kearns, but that is just my opinion.

RFS62
07-15-2006, 09:42 AM
I'd go with a third choice.

3. I'm not in love with the return but something had to be done and I'm not very upset about losing Lopez and kearns.




Put me in this camp.

oneupper
07-16-2006, 11:50 PM
Kearns' play has been ''adequate'' but overall uninspiring. Softest .830 OPS ever, IMO. Won't miss him.

Lopez' skills at-bat (as in working counts, taking walks) will be missed. I cringe when Castro somes up. His glove will not be missed.

The trade looks more like a dumping of those two rather than a ''trading for''' something.

kxblue
07-17-2006, 12:05 AM
I voted no. I am not upset by what we got or lost, I jut feel that the return should have been greater in the current market for two solid everyday players.

keeganbrick
07-17-2006, 12:07 AM
Kearns' play has been ''adequate'' but overall uninspiring. Softest .830 OPS ever, IMO. Won't miss him.

Lopez' skills at-bat (as in working counts, taking walks) will be missed. I cringe when Castro somes up. His glove will not be missed.

The trade looks more like a dumping of those two rather than a ''trading for''' something.
Yea, we would just dump Kearns and Lopez.

REDREAD
07-17-2006, 11:37 AM
I agree I think the Reds did not get as good of a return as they could have for Kearns and Lopez. However that said, I don't think this is a terrible trade. REDREAD, your argument doesn't hold because people's values are obviously ever-changing.

I agree with your point. I was just trying to point out what a horrible job DanO did of managing the roster. He should've traded Kearns before Kearns' luster faded. Instead DanO actually helped lower Kearns value by sending him to the minors, letting it slip to the press that Kearns had bad work habits, etc.

Wayne recovered from DanO's goof on Pena, but not Kearns. BTW, who would've thought 3 or 4 years ago that ultimately Pena would've brought in a lot more than Kearns? I remember the cries of people to just release Pena. Things do change with time. I agree with you there.