PDA

View Full Version : Something that gets overlooked with trades like this (I'm loving Krivsky BTW)



Edskin
07-14-2006, 10:10 PM
Fans always analyze trades in very black and white terms. The look at the players involved, decide which players are better and that's that. Very rarely do people truly analyze how trade affects the overall SITUATION.

I LOVED this trade. I mean, LOVED it.

I don't love it because I think Majewski is superior baseball player to Kearns. Not in the least. But I love it because of what it shows me.

I am a firm believer that it is difficult to impossible to rebuild a losing team with the same players that have been losing for years. I don't want to delve too deeply into the "losing culture" theory, but I do think it has some merit. It's just hard for a new GM/owner to make the necessary changes to the franchise if the main characters remain the same.

Nothing envigorates a franchise more than young, energetic players. Yes, we lost Kearns, but basically, we gained Deno. He's always been there, but for the first time, he is an actual part of this team. I absolutely think you need to include his name EVERY time you talk about this trade.

The relievers we got aren't incredible, but they are both much better than what we've had and much YOUNGER than what we've had. Those should be two bullpen slots that we can rely on for the next few years.

There was always something about Felo I didn't like. I think it was what was between his ears. For a guy that was occasionally brilliant, he had some unreal mental lapses that shouldn't affect a player of his age.

Don't you see the parallel? Both Lopez and Kearns were once SUPERSTARS of the Reds future. Neither was bust by any means. But then again, neither se the world on fire. What you have in Kearns and Lopez are two player sthat have peaked. They can both certainly maintain their current level for many years, but neither is going to be a consistent all-start. All in all, you were looking at two average to above average major leaguers that will probably have one or two years of near all-star level play (Lopez may have already had his career year).

I'm not saying that Kearns and Lopez were "losers" or "cancers" or anything of the sort. But the bottom line is that when you have a puzzle that doesn't look right, you simply MUST try some new pieces.

People have this view of Kearns and Lopez as being these fantastic up and coming youngsters. That ship has sailed. They are what they are.

And what are the Reds now?

IMO, a better TEAM.

Good work Wayne.

redsfanmia
07-14-2006, 10:17 PM
Excellent post and I agree 100%.

redsrule2500
07-14-2006, 10:24 PM
I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

IslandRed
07-14-2006, 10:28 PM
I'm still not sure I like the trade, but we all knew Krivsky needed to give the team an extreme makeover and everything has to be viewed in context. I don't know if it'll help any this year and I don't know how they're planning to spend the millions they won't have to give Kearns and Lopez in arbitration next winter, or where the plan goes from here. Based on Krivsky's track record so far, he's not done yet.

One thing for sure, it ain't boring around here these days.

redsmetz
07-14-2006, 10:36 PM
I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

Was the value of Kearns higher if the market has in fact changed? I think that's what Krivsky is saying. Good relievers, once the scrap heap of pitching, have become a premium. For a team in the market for better relievers, the market went up.

ochre
07-14-2006, 11:06 PM
Was the value of Kearns higher if the market has in fact changed? I think that's what Krivsky is saying. Good relievers, once the scrap heap of pitching, have become a premium. For a team in the market for better relievers, the market went up.
good relievers, assuming that's what we got, are always way too expensive in season. That's no different from any year.

A bold move does not make it, by default, a good move.

Young, above average offensively (and defensively in Kearns case), position players ought to fetch starting pitching in the off-season. Burning that value up on mercurial relief pitching is bold. Only time will tell if it works out to be good.

Crosley68
07-14-2006, 11:07 PM
Many of the things that have been floating around in my head today and yesterday was in that post, Ed.........Hear, Hear!!!

Red in Chicago
07-14-2006, 11:21 PM
good post ed...this team was going nowhere with kearns and lopez, so why not try something different...shake things up a bit...

Patrick Bateman
07-14-2006, 11:30 PM
Nothing envigorates a franchise more than young, energetic players. Yes, we lost Kearns, but basically, we gained Deno.

I agree that we were in a very good situation to trade Kearns. We had a viable replacement that should at least produce to Kearns' level. However, that doesn't mean you sell them short in a trade. We have a back-up plan to Kearns, but he still has good value. He is still an above average starting starter in RF. Same goes for Lopez.

The premise of the trade was good, and I agree with you there completely, but we simply should have been able to get more value for them. Lopez has some holes in his game, but his overall package makes him an above average starting SS.

This trade does not weaken us now, nor does it really weaken us in the future. It's that we could have gotten more. It's about what we didn't get rather than what we did get IMO.

Cedric
07-14-2006, 11:32 PM
I agree that we were in a very good situation to trade Kearns. We had a viable replacement that should at least produce to Kearns' level. However, that doesn't mean you sell them short in a trade. We have a back-up plan to Kearns, but he still has good value. He is still an above average starting starter in RF. Same goes for Lopez.

The premise of the trade was good, and I agree with you there completely, but we simply should have been able to get more value for them. Lopez has some holes in his game, but his overall package makes him an above average starting SS.

This trade does not weaken us now, nor does it really weaken us in the future. It's that we could have gotten more. It's about what we didn't get rather than what we did get IMO.

Lopez is an above average starting SS nowhere. If it wasn't for the old school way baseball is ran Felipe would never see the field as a SS. He's horrendous.

Slider
07-14-2006, 11:33 PM
Great post Ed...WK is not sitting on his hands. We can always argue that talent for talent...someone won and someone lost...but we often take the entire trade out of context.

Krivsky is trying to identify which parts to build around and which to discard....which can be replaced within and which have to be replaced from the outside. I don't suspect that I will ever agree with all the trades any GM makes...but we probably need to look at the overall impact on the team. If the team plays better and wins more games...then it was a good move.

No GM is ever perfect in his trades. He will win some and lose some. If Krivsky wins most of the trades and the team consistantly gets better...then I'm in the boat...

Patrick Bateman
07-14-2006, 11:41 PM
Lopez is an above average starting SS nowhere. If it wasn't for the old school way baseball is ran Felipe would never see the field as a SS. He's horrendous.

His hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies.

CrackerJack
07-14-2006, 11:44 PM
His hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies.

It should, unless your name's Castro or Clayton.

That sort of thing shouldn't be that hard to replace these days.

Finding competent ML caliber pitching of any kind is.

WVRedsFan
07-15-2006, 02:25 AM
We traded for immediate help and dismissed potential...

Austin Kearns has been touted as the future. The local kid who could be the all everything outfielder. Instead we got a kid who just might have had an attitude problem (no evidence outside our former GM who was an idiot sending him down to lose weight) and lots of potential, but nothing concrete. He may turn in to a 30 HR, 100 RBI man someday, but no evidence is found that this is on the horizon. He was also often injured.

Felipe Lopez won the hearts of Reds fans with last year's performance which showed he had some pop, but he continued to field poorly and showed little improvement in that area. So many times I watched as he was slow to cover 2nd base on plays you learn in little league. He wasn't moving to become the next Barry Larkin is a safe statement. He has potential, but there was nothing concrete to say he was going to get there anytime soon.

Ryan Wagner was a college phenom. He won our hearts with a great rookie season with nasty stuff and lots of potential. He came back the last two seasons getting bombed and showing less compusure than any pitcher in recent memory. He has lots of potential and little concrete to show that he was getting to be the devastating setup man or closer we wanted. He may get there, but it appeared it wouldn't be anytime soon with an over 5 ERA in AAA.

Three players who had tremendous potential, but not moving toward toward realizing that potential. Their worth? Potential is valuable, but less than actual concrete proof that they will get there. The Reds needing relief pitching desparately, had to give up something to get something. Good relief pitching is at a premium. Just look at enough games and you will see this. Every club has this problem. Krivsky gambled that we could replace Kearns with Denorfia and not lose much (an assumption I do not agree with, but that's my problem) and that defense was more important than offensive statistics. And relief pitching. Without a really dpendable relief pitcher in the pen, the gamble had to be made. In return we get two good MLB arms and a journeyman SS. The bullpen is immediately better and short is a little less potent. Right field is somewhat less than a wash. How many games did the bullpen allow far more runs than the Reds scored? How many runs do we now need to win a game?

Offense has not been a problem, but defense and pitching has. Krivsky took two players with some value and turned it into better defense (overall--better or equal in the OF and equal at short) for maybe some players who could hold a lead. We gave up a potential 45 HR's and put a plan in place that would mean maybe we wouldn't need those dingers.

As I said the jury is out, but I like the thinking here. All that offense over the last couple of years netted us a losing record. Let's try something different and see what happens. You have to admit, like my Dad used to say, you can crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one gets full the fastest.

By this time next year, we'll know the answer.

Good post, Ed.

SunDeck
07-15-2006, 06:25 AM
Was the value of Kearns higher if the market has in fact changed? I think that's what Krivsky is saying. Good relievers, once the scrap heap of pitching, have become a premium. For a team in the market for better relievers, the market went up.

Yep, and it just shows how important it is to create that stuff in your own farm system. If you want to go buy it, you are going to have to pay a premium. So, for a team that doesn't have any in the pipe, but which has a shot at the playoffs, there really isn't any other choice.

GAC
07-15-2006, 06:36 AM
Good post Ed. :thumbup:

As rfs62 once said.... "Blow it up Wayne and make it yours!"

He dood it!

Topcat
07-15-2006, 07:24 AM
Great post Ed. Way I see it is quite simple $$$$ saved to aquire a SP, plus 2 relievers who's salary we can control over the next few years. We stay in the playoff race and gain some pay flex this year later and down the line.

MrCinatit
07-15-2006, 07:37 AM
I like this trade, as well.
Silently, I've been disappointed with Kearns' performance. Yeah, it is good - but those spectacular figures we had hoped for long ago seemed to not be surfacing.
While I like Lopez a lot - his defence did suffer. And this year, his offense seemed to be pulled down with it.
As for Wagner...great arm, but the man does not have killer instinct needed to be a successful ballplayer.

As for the guys we got: while listening to the game while going to work, Narron took Harang out with a three run lead. For the first time in a very long time, I did not fear such a small lead.

Edskin
07-15-2006, 08:41 AM
A few things:

1. I don't think the "we could have gotten more" argument holds water for two very clear reasons

A) The rest of MLB knows what many of us here have suspected for a long time-- Kearns and Lopez simply aren't that great. The luster is off BOTH of those guys-- neither is bad, both can be good, but no longer are we waiting for superstars to emerge-- ain't gonna happen. Look around MLB-- is it THAT hard to find an OF'er with similar numbers to Kearns?

B) Bullpen help is not as plentiful as it once was. Both of the guys we got are good, young, and cheap. That's pretty important.

2. It's no coincidence we did this deal with Bowden-- which makes me feel even better. Name another GM that overrates "potential" more than Jimbo? He drafted Kearns hoping he'd be the next Mickey Mantle, I believe Jimbo still thinks that might happen.

If this is the ONLY big move Krivsky makes over the next season or so, then yeah, it's a bit odd. But assuming this is just another move in part of a bigger plan, it's brilliant.

Krusty
07-15-2006, 10:30 AM
Judging by Krivsky's short track record as a GM, I am willing to say that this trade will be a success not only for this year but down the road too.

Now just go out and get that fifth starter.

RedRoser
07-15-2006, 10:53 AM
Good post, ed.
And, as Krusty said "Now just go out and get that fifth starter," WK! :beerme:

---'Roser

Spitball
07-15-2006, 11:19 AM
Ed, one of the best posts I've read on the trade. :thumbup:

Unassisted
07-15-2006, 11:39 AM
Well stated, edskin. I also liked the trade and agree with your list of reasons.

cincyinco
07-15-2006, 11:42 AM
I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

Says who? you?



The premise of the trade was good, and I agree with you there completely, but we simply should have been able to get more value for them. Lopez has some holes in his game, but his overall package makes him an above average starting SS.

This trade does not weaken us now, nor does it really weaken us in the future. It's that we could have gotten more. It's about what we didn't get rather than what we did get IMO.

Again, says who? You?

Everyone said when we got Arroyo that we didn't get enough for WMP. Now everyone is saying the same thing about this trade. It seems to me that instead of being able to get more in a trade for these guys, that fans here overvalue our own players far too much.

Kearns and Lopez are both players with big question marks. Whether that be with their health(Kearns), or their talent(Lopez). If you take those important factors into consideration, plus the fact they're both VERY expensive beyond this year, plus the fact one is represented by Boras and will get close to 6 million a year for putting up a sub .800 OPS... plus you improve your infield defense by default, and dont lose much with your outfield defense... PLUS you instantly improve the bullpen by default also... PLUS you help your chances as your shot to win NOW.. well I dont really know how you can think this trade is terrible.

Everyone cried when we got Brandon Phillips. Everyone whined when we got Dave Ross. Everyone said we left value at the table with WMP. I'd say all those have worked out pretty well.

Was this trade a risk? Sure, every trade carries the weight of some risk. Did we leave value on the table? Perhaps, but you don't ALWAYS have to win trades on paper to win on the field. It may not work out, but at least its clear that we're trying to win, and trying to win this year. I'm excited about that. We haven't been to the playoffs in over a decade. Jim Bowden couldn't get it done and neither could Dan O'Brien. Lets give it another month or two and see where we stand as a team before we all follow the piper like lemmings and walk off a cliff.

cincyinco
07-15-2006, 11:47 AM
His hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies.

Really?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6415

a sub .750 OPS is nothing to write home about. The guy is barely hitting .270, not even slugging .400. His eye seems better this year, he's getting on base okay.. he's swiping bags.. but beyond that, he's not worth the 6 million plus he's going to get in arbitration next year, especially when you factor in his defensive deficiencies.

Come on man, take the rose colored glasses off and look at what we gave up. Really look at it. Detach yourself from these guys, and be objective. A guy with a line of 268/356/394 who isn't great on defense is really nothing too hard to replace. AND it can be done for a lot less than 6 million a year.

Patrick Bateman
07-15-2006, 11:51 AM
Says who? you?



Again, says who? You?

Everyone said when we got Arroyo that we didn't get enough for WMP. Now everyone is saying the same thing about this trade. It seems to me that instead of being able to get more in a trade for these guys, that fans here overvalue our own players far too much.


Everyone cried when we got Brandon Phillips. Everyone whined when we got Dave Ross. Everyone said we left value at the table with WMP. I'd say all those have worked out pretty well.



FYI, I wouldn't have been one of those "whiners". I thought this trade stunk because it did.

Based on performance, contract status, and past history we can judge a player's value. I'm not really saying there was a better offer on the table, but if this was the best deal that Krivsky could find, then he shouldn't have made the trade.

We traded 2 above average regulars who were not pending FAs for 2 relievers that are solid, but not "shut-down", 2 fringe infileders, and a raw prospect with loads of potential.

There is a very large talent gap right there. 2 regular players who happen to be quite good are worth more than relievers. IMO set-up relievers should have about 1/2 the value of regulars because that is about how much effect they will have on games. We gave up 2 guys that we can replace within, but to me that does not justify selling them way short.

westofyou
07-15-2006, 11:53 AM
We traded 2 above average regulars who were not pending FAs They were pending to get about 11 millon next year though.

Falls City Beer
07-15-2006, 11:55 AM
Really?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6415

a sub .750 OPS is nothing to write home about. The guy is barely hitting .270, not even slugging .400. His eye seems better this year, he's getting on base okay.. he's swiping bags.. but beyond that, he's not worth the 6 million plus he's going to get in arbitration next year, especially when you factor in his defensive deficiencies.

Come on man, take the rose colored glasses off and look at what we gave up. Really look at it. Detach yourself from these guys, and be objective. A guy with a line of 268/356/394 who isn't great on defense is really nothing too hard to replace. AND it can be done for a lot less than 6 million a year.

I think Lopez is still fairly young and still capable of returning to last year's offensive numbers. I don't feel the same way about Kearns.

Yet I still don't think it's a great trade. And I have justified my position on a perfectly objective and logical basis.

But then, I'm not someone who routinely impugns the players the Reds ship out and blindly praises those who come back to the fold. I judge each on his merits and liabilities. Then I try to reach a conclusion--not the other way around.

cincyinco
07-15-2006, 11:58 AM
FYI, I wouldn't have been one of those "whiners". I thought this trade stunk because it did.

Based on performance, contract status, and past history we can judge a player's value. I'm not really saying there was a better offer on the table, but if this was the best deal that Krivsky could find, then he shouldn't have made the trade.

We traded 2 above average regulars who were not pending FAs for 2 relievers that are solid, but not "shut-down", 2 fringe infileders, and a raw prospect with loads of potential.

There is a very large talent gap right there. 2 regular players who happen to be quite good are worth more than relievers. IMO set-up relievers should have about 1/2 the value of regulars because that is about how much effect they will have on games. We gave up 2 guys that we can replace within, but to me that does not justify selling them way short.

Based on performance, contract status, and past history we can judge a player's value.

You said it buddy, not me. Based on performance this year, Lopez is NOTHING very exciting and he doesn't have much of a track record... 2005 could very well be an abberation. Based on past history, Kearns value is NOTHING - he's an injury plagued, sometimes 'overweight' and 'bad attitude' guy in the clubhouse(none of which i believe, btw, except the injury plagued). Based on contract status(Kearns and Lopez) both are about to get REAL expensive, REAL quick, even in their arbitration years.

IN YOUR OPINION, setup relievers should have about 1/2 the value of regulars... but thats just not the case. Good pitching is good pitching, bottom line. Doesn't matter if it comes out of the pen or the rotation. Its a hot commodity, and its hard to find. Both the guys we got, are both very solid bullpen guys.. and with Bray you have the potential to get a LOT better. Think Ryan Wagner - the one we SHOULD have gotten. The one who can actually get some guys out and not blow up on the mound.

The fact that this gives us a shot to compete THIS YEAR, when every nut in baseball said we finished last, is just ONE of the small reasons this trade was done.

What happens in the offseason when we got sign another 1 or 2 league average or above pitchers to add to the rotation with the savings we WONT have to spend on Lopez or Kearns? And all the sudden Cincy has FIVE capable starting pitchers, AND a bullpen to write home to mom about? What happens when we're ALSO competing next year?

This seems fairly simple to me. But maybe thats just me.

Patrick Bateman
07-15-2006, 12:03 PM
Really?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/6415

a sub .750 OPS is nothing to write home about. The guy is barely hitting .270, not even slugging .400. His eye seems better this year, he's getting on base okay.. he's swiping bags.. but beyond that, he's not worth the 6 million plus he's going to get in arbitration next year, especially when you factor in his defensive deficiencies.

Come on man, take the rose colored glasses off and look at what we gave up. Really look at it. Detach yourself from these guys, and be objective. A guy with a line of 268/356/394 who isn't great on defense is really nothing too hard to replace. AND it can be done for a lot less than 6 million a year.

Those numbers may not look very good, but how about when we compare him to other SS.

He ranks 11th in SS OPS and ranks, 13th in RC/G, 13th in offensive win shares, and 16th in total win shares.

Based on this season, his .749 OPS may not look very special, but more than half the teams in baseball have a guy putting up an even less special OPS. And to be fair, last season should not be discounted altogether where he has the 5th best OPS in baseball. He still does have that potential.

Even when you factor in his poor fielding he is still an average regular this season and well above average last season.

I'm not suggesting he wasn't a bad candidate to get traded, because I don't neccessarily think it's wise for a budget concious team like the Reds to tie up a good amount of money in Lopez, but he had value, and lots of it. An average SS this season coming off an all-star season with 2.5 years until free agency has a ton of value. He will not be as easy to replace as you think.

Patrick Bateman
07-15-2006, 12:05 PM
What happens in the offseason when we got sign another 1 or 2 league average or above pitchers to add to the rotation with the savings we WONT have to spend on Lopez or Kearns? And all the sudden Cincy has FIVE capable starting pitchers, AND a bullpen to write home to mom about? What happens when we're ALSO competing next year?

This seems fairly simple to me. But maybe thats just me.

The whole concept of the trade was fine, and I like the idea of having some money to play with in free agency, but we still did not get nearly enough to justify making this trade IMO.

cincyinco
07-15-2006, 12:08 PM
I think Lopez is still fairly young and still capable of returning to last year's offensive numbers. I don't feel the same way about Kearns.

Yet I still don't think it's a great trade. And I have justified my position on a perfectly objective and logical basis.

But then, I'm not someone who routinely impugns the players the Reds ship out and blindly praises those who come back to the fold. I judge each on his merits and liabilities. Then I try to reach a conclusion--not the other way around.

I dont either my man. I'm not so sure Lopez can repeat his 2005 performance, and as much as a big fan I am of Austin Kearns, I still can't let myself believe that he wont get hurt, or regress, or something. I've just been let down way too much by him.

All that said, I wont blindly praise those who come back in the fold either - but I will say that I am one of the FEW who knew EVERY.. SINGLE.. NAME.. that came back to us in this trade. Bill Bray, Daryl Thompson, Brandon Harris, Maj Majewski.. all those names are very familiar with me and I know very much their capabilities. I'm not going to blindly praise every one of them, especially Clayton. But Maj is a very solid reliever - and Bray has the potential to be a closer IMO. Thompson, aside from injury, looked very promosing and was making tons of progress just last year. It seems to me the very core weakness of this team was thuroughly addressed. And I dont think we gave up the farm to do it. As an added bonus, we just gave ourselves about 11 million dollars of flexability headed into next offseason. To me, that spells 1 or 2 more very good to above average pitchers to add to a rotation. To me that spells, for the first time in a VERY LONG TIME, a full 5 man rotation that could be average to above.

As someone said, we've seen where all the offense has gotten us over the years. Mostly, its gotten us a lot of headaches, heartburn, and strained necks by the time June rolls around. We are within reach of this thing, and its time to strike if we really want a chance.

And if we dont make it? Well, I'm positive that Krivsky is going to retool this team with money saved during the offseason. He's putting his own stamp on this team, and I like it. Its a much needed change. I know its hard for a lot of folks to deal with, especially considering how much we're all emotionally invested in this team - and when you consider that we're mostly invested in the offensive side of the ball becuase thats the only things thats been worth a damn in the last 6 years. But give it a month. If we're still in striking distance of 1st place.. and still in WC contention - wont it have been worth it for a shot to finally win?

Make no mistake, this ownership and regime is doing exactly what it said it would - and that would be to try to win. I didn't think they'd have a huge window to do so. I thought it would be next year and 2008 and that was about it. A very small window to gun for. The way Krivs is setting it up, giving himself the financial wiggle room, we may be in contention this year, next year, 2008, and possibly even beyond when the fruits of the farm system start appearing.

All I'm saying is try to look at the big picture. There is light at the end of the tunnel folks, for the first time in a long time, its getting closer.

cincyinco
07-15-2006, 12:14 PM
Those numbers may not look very good, but how about when we compare him to other SS.

He ranks 11th in SS OPS and ranks, 13th in RC/G, 13th in offensive win shares, and 16th in total win shares.

Based on this season, his .749 OPS may not look very special, but more than half the teams in baseball have a guy putting up an even less special OPS. And to be fair, last season should not be discounted altogether where he has the 5th best OPS in baseball. He still does have that potential.

Even when you factor in his poor fielding he is still an average regular this season and well above average last season.

I'm not suggesting he wasn't a bad candidate to get traded, because I don't neccessarily think it's wise for a budget concious team like the Reds to tie up a good amount of money in Lopez, but he had value, and lots of it. An average SS this season coming off an all-star season with 2.5 years until free agency has a ton of value. He will not be as easy to replace as you think.

Reread what you just said. An AVERAGE shortstop coming off an all star season but putting up a sub .750 OPS with 2.5 years left until free agency, which is going to cost 6 plus million a year next, and god knows how much more after has a ton of value?

an average short stop worth 6 plus million? I dont think so. Again, I think some folks around here put WAY to much stock in their own players.

If a .750 OPS at shortstop is hard to replace, then move Brandon Phillips over to SS(which he's capable of handling) and find a new 2b or put freel there. See? That wasn't very hard at all.


He ranks 11th in SS OPS and ranks, 13th in RC/G, 13th in offensive win shares, and 16th in total win shares.

So, he's about middle of the pack really.. an average short stop as you said. Is that worth 6 million? Even if you can't replace the OPS, if you can get an above average defender there, this team has more than enough offense. Add that in with another average to above average pitcher(ala Arroyo, who's good but seriously has been pitching well over his head).. and suddenly this team has some pitching and defense - and still enough offense to win games.

This really seems like a no brainer.

dsmith421
07-15-2006, 12:16 PM
Lopez is an above average starting SS nowhere. If it wasn't for the old school way baseball is ran Felipe would never see the field as a SS. He's horrendous.

Is that an excuse to just totally give up on a player and trade him for garbage? Last I heard, teams still fielded players at first and second base.

cincyinco
07-15-2006, 12:18 PM
The whole concept of the trade was fine, and I like the idea of having some money to play with in free agency, but we still did not get nearly enough to justify making this trade IMO.

Okay, thats my whole point here. Its your opinion. In my opinion, we probably could have gotten a bit better value too. But this deal was by no means a heartbreaker, and is by no means did Krivsky get bent over, like some are saying.. not when you really look at what we gave up. These guys are both players with huge question marks.

Can Lopez repeat his 2005 performance or was it an abberation?
Can Kearns stay healthy and finally live up to his potential?
Are both these guys REALLY worth the money they're going to get in arbitration?

Too all those questions, I would say probably not - aside from perhaps Kearns finally staying healthy - but beyond this year, I'm no miss cleo.

The philisophical reasons for doing this were sound. And thats all that matters to me. It gives us a shot to win NOW and gives us room to be big spenders this year in free agency. And I really don't think we lost a whole lot on the offensive side of the hill, we gained a ton by default in the bullpen area, and by default, we help ourselves defensively.

Patrick Bateman
07-15-2006, 12:24 PM
If a .750 OPS at shortstop is hard to replace, then move Brandon Phillips over to SS(which he's capable of handling) and find a new 2b or put freel there. See? That wasn't very hard at all.



That would be nice, but you know it wont happen this season. Clayton is the SS.

Eric_Davis
07-15-2006, 01:00 PM
I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

Most people who have said they have disliked the trade also seem to have forgotten the basic rule of Trading101: "Buy Low, Sell High".

Kearns has had nothing but absolutely horrible years since he's been in the Majors...he was even sent back to the minors in the last year or two because of how horrible he's been. He's finally put together a "decent" first half giving him the potential of one good season. Now is the time to sell.

Lopez was an All-Star last year. While he hasn't put together the All-Star numbers from last year, his 30 SB's, and other offensive production from the SS spot puts him among the elite SS's in the National League offensively. He's entering his prime (now that steroids are gone, 27 years old will be the prime year again), just like Kearns. Now is the time to sell.

Wagner on the other hand is being sold not while he's rising in his career, though with his birthday tomorrow, he's still a young 24. However, he is being sold to the G.M. who originally drafted him which places his value higher than with other G.M.'s around the league.

In return, we are getting five players, none of which are anywhere near their prime...Majewski being the closest, but since Majewski is the fourth or fifth best player of the ones the REDS received, that's OK.

The three best players the REDS received are Bray, Harris, and Thompson...all three being purchased when their value as very low.

This is a perfect example of a perfect trade. This is how winning organizations make trades and improve their franchises.

Krivsky gets an A+ for this trade. For those of you who don't like the trade, don't feel bad...you're like most G.M.'s...you want to look good within one year of the trade. Four years from now, the REDS will have gotten so much more out of this trade than the Nationals.

But it's not about getting the better of the other team.

As a result of this trade, the franchise is set up better in overall talent, and they've set up the "big payday" better. Lopez, Kearns, and Dunn would have all demanded big contract increases about the same time....they are set up a little better financially two years from now.

In any trade you want to get the best player in the deal, but you don't want that player to be the best player immediately, otherwise you're paying too much and buying too high.

Kearns and Lopez are the better players "right now". That's a "GOOD" thing. That's how you're supposed to make a trade. Trade the players who are better right now for the better players who'll be better later,...then sit back, be patient, and reap the rewards.

The A's have done this for years...the Twins have done this. The Braves have done this for years to the tune of 14 straight division titles. Not everybody gets it, in fact, most G.M.'s are clueless...that's why the same teams keep winning all the time.

We are blessed to have Krivsky and this new ownership in place who understand "the right way" to conduct business.

I look forward to many, many, more positive moves by Krivsky and his staff.

The guy who sits on his hands and does nothing does nothing and occasionally Krivsky will err in his judgement, but just like any business that has ups and downs, his will be like Boeing's...mostly, up, up, and away.!!!

Look! Up in the sky! It's a plane, it's a bird,....NO, it's SuperKriv!

guttle11
07-15-2006, 01:30 PM
I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

No matter how many times people say that, it still doesn't make it true.

I'm sick of people looking at this trade from a W/L perspective. Krivsky drew from a strength to better a weakness, and acquired pitching in a dry market, without trading any of his top prospects.

This trade was great now, and for the future. No matter what Kearns and Lopez "woulda, coulda, or shoulda" brought in return, and no matter what they do in Washington.

Highlifeman21
07-15-2006, 01:36 PM
His hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies.


Absolute fallacy.

Is Felipe Lopez Adam Dunn? No. Adam Dunn's hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies, but only Felipe Lopez circa 2005 offensively would even come marginally close to outweighing defensive deficiencies.

Felipe Lopez should concentrate on not being a switch hitter, and maybe find a home at 2B at any ballpark in the MLB and then maybe, maybe his hitting might far outweigh his defensive deficiencies.

flyer85
07-15-2006, 01:40 PM
In the end success will be defined by making a playoff run. I have a hard time seeing a team with an infield of RA, RC, BP and SH making a playoff run (as a group they combine below average defense and offense). Add in the fact the two primary defensive positions are being manned by guys age 36, this is still a poor defensive team.

guttle11
07-15-2006, 01:43 PM
In the end success will be defined by making a playoff run. I have a hard time seeing a team with an infield of RA, RC, BP and SH making a playoff run (as a group they combine below average defense and offense). Add in the fact the two primary defensive positions are being manned by guys age 36, this is still a poor defensive team.

But with a better bullpen. Why is that being forgotten in this?

flyer85
07-15-2006, 01:48 PM
But with a better bullpen. Why is that being forgotten in this?I have a hard time seeing how 2 guys (that are very average) and will combine to pitch maybe 60 innings in the last 70 games are going to have as big of an impact as an infield made of mostly subpar players with the stick and in the field.

f WK had acquired a solid starter who would give 100 IP I would have felt a lot better.

Eric_Davis
07-15-2006, 01:49 PM
Krivsky drew from a strength to better a weakness, and acquired pitching in a dry market, without trading any of his top prospects.


No kidding. If you watched that 15-12 Atlanta/San Diego game last night, you witnessed just how dry this market is for pitching, any pitching.

All Bruce Bochy and Bobby Cox could do last night was sit back, chew on some tums, and wait for the end to come....totally unable to stop the bleeding no matter who they threw out there to pitch. The Padres used 9 pitchers last night, a franchise record. The Braves blew leads of 5-1, 8-5, 11-9, and 12-11, finally winning 15-12.

Though the bulk of the trade by the REDS will show Major League results three and four years from now, there will be some help immediately with Clayton, Maj, and Bray.

buckeyenut
07-15-2006, 02:18 PM
I have a hard time seeing how 2 guys (that are very average) and will combine to pitch maybe 60 innings in the last 70 games are going to have as big of an impact as an infield made of mostly subpar players with the stick and in the field.

f WK had acquired a solid starter who would give 100 IP I would have felt a lot better.

Because those innings they are going to give us have been over the early part of the season high leverage innings that have cost this team a number of games. I would say that we could easily allocate 10 losses to this bullpen so far this year.

You have to stop the bleeding, and you have to give the team hope. A bad pen makes the rest of the team feel like their efforts are all for naught.

Not saying I wouldn't LOVE another good SP, but bullpen is a bigger issue right now.

PickOff
07-15-2006, 02:24 PM
The success of this trade in large part depends upon Narron. The Reds are a better team now with this trade because the bullpen is very much improved and the offense should not drop off...if Narron plays the right people.

Narron's signing will prove more important than this trade by Krivsky.

Edskin
07-15-2006, 03:03 PM
But then, I'm not someone who routinely impugns the players the Reds ship out and blindly praises those who come back to the fold. I judge each on his merits and liabilities. Then I try to reach a conclusion--not the other way around.

FCB-- Lots of people around here have been advocating trading Kearns and/or Lopez for a LONG time. I for one, have been on record as having said I'd like almost ANY decent pitching in return for those two.

What we're seeing is a typical phenomenom of sports fans-- vastly overrating what they've got.

Do me a favor: Take all outfielders on major league rosters right now-- rank them from 1st to last--- then tell me where Kearns fits in.

Now, rank all middle relievers from 1st to last. I guarantee you that Majewski and Bray will rank higher on that list than Kearns will on his.

ochre
07-15-2006, 03:16 PM
FCB-- Lots of people around here have been advocating trading Kearns and/or Lopez for a LONG time. I for one, have been on record as having said I'd like almost ANY decent pitching in return for those two.

What we're seeing is a typical phenomenom of sports fans-- vastly overrating what they've got.

Do me a favor: Take all outfielders on major league rosters right now-- rank them from 1st to last--- then tell me where Kearns fits in.

Now, rank all middle relievers from 1st to last. I guarantee you that Majewski and Bray will rank higher on that list than Kearns will on his.
Apples and caterpillars.

Above average is above average. Kearns is an above average right fielder.

Show me the metrics that put Majewski above average. Same for Bray.

The point everyone seems so willing to gloss over is that those teams that have made off like bandits moving players like Kearns and Lopez have done so in the offseason. Krivsky was even party to one such fleecing. The problem I have with this deal is and will always be, regardless of how the principles perform from here on out is that Krivsky just went all in with a 3-4-6-7. All he needs is that 5, but the odds are against it.

Krusty
07-15-2006, 03:26 PM
Man, I feel like I have gone back in time to 1971 when the Reds made that deal with the Astros. Reds fans lambasted Bob Howsam for dealing away Lee Mays, Tommy Helms and Jimmy Stewart.

Now fast forward to 2006. Same thinking here. But there is a good chance Bray can develop into a future closer for this team the next five to seven years. Do you think Ryan Wagner would have developed into the future closer for the Reds given his tailspin? The Reds have Guardado for this season. The Reds have solified the bullpen for not only this season but next season too. Clayton (Denis Menke) is a stopgap for this season. Next year you'll have Brandon Phillips at shortstop.

But it is the other players and their style of play that will determine the outcome of the Reds down the road. Chris Denorfia's play is similar to Ryan Freel and he will go all out. Maybe he doesn't possess the power numbers of a Austin Kearns but if he hits .270 and can get on base consistently at the top of the lineup, we can live with his lack of punch.

Brenden Harris could be the second baseman next season. If not, look for him to be the utility player to fill in at second and third base. His style of play is all out.

Just as the Reds tried to rectifiy a sore spot with the bullpen, I think they wanted to get players in the lineup that will put everything they have on the field.

Pitching, defense and timely hitting wins ballgames. Chicks might like the long ball but championship teams are built on those three things.

Reds1
07-15-2006, 03:42 PM
I agree quite a bit. I remember some were upset getting rid of Wily Mo. Own it's own that trade worked out, but it gave Kearns the ability to play everyday and now Kearns is traded for pitching which we despartly need. For sure the Reds FO thinks we have OF down on the farm and we sure do. I think with lopez it's just a piece of the puzzle. I'm not sure who replaces him full time, but the defense wasn't getting better. It will allow us to get better at SS with defense and EE can work on his defense. It's all a piece of the puzzle. What I like the most of the trade is that it shows this FO is trying to win now. Not next season, but now - and that's a big change from the past. I'd like to see an interview with Dunn and Griffey as they were all buddies. I wonder what they think about the trade.

Go Reds

Mutaman
07-15-2006, 03:44 PM
One of the positives for me is that the trade continues to chip away at my memory of that nightmare known as the Lindner years. Some people running things who may actually care and have a little competence- what a concept.

KronoRed
07-15-2006, 03:49 PM
Now just go out and get that fifth starter.
We have one, his name is Milton

We need a 3 starter..and I don't see what's left to trade for one

Krusty
07-15-2006, 04:07 PM
We have one, his name is Milton

We need a 3 starter..and I don't see what's left to trade for one

How about the Phillies Jon Lieber? We trade Claussen and LaRue for Lieber and Liberthal. We really don't need Lieberthal but it gets us out of LaRue's salary for 2007 and allows the Reds to afford Lieber's 2007 salary of 7.5 million. Liberthal will be a free agent at the end of the season and LaRue can take his place come 2007.

cincyinco
07-15-2006, 04:10 PM
We have one, his name is Milton

We need a 3 starter..and I don't see what's left to trade for one

Oh c'mon Krono.. there is plenty of good prospects in the minor leagues having good years.

Votto, Bailey, Wood, Cueto, Bruce... guys like Ward, Lecure even, Stubbs as a PTBNL even.. these guys are not without value. Larue has some value, despite his putrid hitting this year. Aurillia may have some, albiet small. Claussen even... Value is there, you just have to put it together.

Edskin
07-15-2006, 04:10 PM
We need a 3 starter..and I don't see what's left to trade for one

I agree, but is I hope that doesn't imply that Kearns/Lopez could have fetched a good #3 starter. I can't think of any team in MLB who would give up a quality 3rd starter for either or even both of those guys. And if my team gave up a #3 starter for either of them, then I'd be outraged unless the organization was LOADED with top notch pitching-- aren't many of those.

WVRedsFan
07-15-2006, 04:49 PM
I agree, but is I hope that doesn't imply that Kearns/Lopez could have fetched a good #3 starter. I can't think of any team in MLB who would give up a quality 3rd starter for either or even both of those guys. And if my team gave up a #3 starter for either of them, then I'd be outraged unless the organization was LOADED with top notch pitching-- aren't many of those.

Truth is...since the Bowden years, we've been strapped with a lot of mediocre players with sometimes big salaries. There has been no one that we could really point at to get that top pitcher. Casey brought Dave Williams and Pittsburgh is waking up to the fact that Sean is what he is. A non-run producing first baseman. Not much call for that. WMP brought Arroyo, but Bronson was just a relief pitcher with the Sox. He's done better, but has looked horrible lately. WMP is WMP. Potential out the kazoo, but not much else. Kearns and Lopez brought two middle relief pitchers and a Thanksgiving turkey...I mean Royce Clayton. Only Bowden would have done this deal. He loves potential.

Each of the players traded were loved by a lot of the Reds fans, but they had problems in their games. Casey was slow and not a run producer, WMP was a monster hitter when he wasn't swinging wildly and a poor fielder, Lopez was a player with a career year last year who couldn't field, and Kearns just seemed lazy and with an attitude. All four of them might have brought a depdable 2nd or third starter, but probably not.

Cleaning house is sometimes not a bad thing.

Eric_Davis
07-15-2006, 04:50 PM
How about the Phillies Jon Lieber? We trade Claussen and LaRue for Lieber and Liberthal. We really don't need Lieberthal but it gets us out of LaRue's salary for 2007 and allows the Reds to afford Lieber's 2007 salary of 7.5 million. Liberthal will be a free agent at the end of the season and LaRue can take his place come 2007.

That's a great idea.

Caveat Emperor
07-15-2006, 05:05 PM
How about the Phillies Jon Lieber? We trade Claussen and LaRue for Lieber and Liberthal. We really don't need Lieberthal but it gets us out of LaRue's salary for 2007 and allows the Reds to afford Lieber's 2007 salary of 7.5 million. Liberthal will be a free agent at the end of the season and LaRue can take his place come 2007.

Jon Lieber would only be a marginal improvement over what the Reds currently trot out every 5th day. Opposing hitters are slugging .505 off him this season, and his OPSA is over .100 points higher than his career average. Bad year, or just a mediocre pitcher hitting the wall at age 36? I'll pass on finding out.

I'd rather take my chances that a 27 year old Claussen puts it together a little bit in the second half than toss him away and hope that a 36 year old Lieber suddenly remembers how effective he was when he was 4 years younger.

Matt700wlw
07-15-2006, 06:46 PM
I agree, but again, the value of Kearns was higher.

Apparantely not.

KronoRed
07-15-2006, 07:36 PM
Apparantely not.
Or we didn't shop at the right store ;)

IslandRed
07-15-2006, 11:10 PM
Or we didn't shop at the right store ;)

That's the thing -- what GM in baseball would covet Kearns and Lopez MORE than Jim Bowden? Combined with some of the stuff TC mentioned in his "skinny" thread, it makes me wonder if their trade value had cratered and Krivsky got what he could while he could. Maybe other teams were slapping a Milo on Kearns, and as for Lopez, instead of a premium offensive shortstop, they saw a guy that's neither long for shortstop nor raking anymore. There's a world of difference in value between shortstops OPSing .850 and second basemen at .750.

It gets back to a couple of principles of the market: (1) The people who set the market are the other 29 GMs, everyone else's opinion doesn't count, and (2) a ballplayer is worth in trade only what another club will give for him.

Anyway, the whole thing makes me think there were reasons and rationales involved that weren't strictly about current production, and we'll probably never know some of them.

traderumor
07-16-2006, 05:19 PM
Here's another angle on the trade. I recall much hand wringing over the fact that Reds' management was too PR driven, that it would not make unpopular moves for fear of fan revolt. I think Krivsky has shown that he will make what he considers to be the right move regardless of what the popular vote might render. Of course, he said as much in the presser, and wanted to know if a poll was out on the trade yet since Cincy is the capital of polls :cool: I like this guy.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 01:26 AM
A few things:

1. I don't think the "we could have gotten more" argument holds water for two very clear reasons

A) The rest of MLB knows what many of us here have suspected for a long time-- Kearns and Lopez simply aren't that great. The luster is off BOTH of those guys-- neither is bad, both can be good, but no longer are we waiting for superstars to emerge-- ain't gonna happen. Look around MLB-- is it THAT hard to find an OF'er with similar numbers to Kearns?

Kearns and Lopez were in the top 10 in OPS at their respective positions at the time of the trade. Kearns was 28th among all MLB OF in OPS.

I know it's a fashionable to say they had "lost their luster" -- it helps people to rationalize the trade in their heads. But in reality, they would have represented upgrades to probably 20 of the 30 major league teams.



B) Bullpen help is not as plentiful as it once was. Both of the guys we got are good, young, and cheap. That's pretty important.

Lots of people describe them as "good, young, and cheap." They're definitely young and cheap. How good are they? Look at their numbers and suddenly they look like what they are -- mediocre, young, and cheap.

Krusty
07-17-2006, 08:51 AM
Even though it might seem that the Nationals got the better end of the deal, one thing you have to remember that the money the Reds would have paid this offseason to Lopez and Kearns in arbitration, can be used to pursue free agents this offseason.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 09:20 AM
Even though it might seem that the Nationals got the better end of the deal, one thing you have to remember that the money the Reds would have paid this offseason to Lopez and Kearns in arbitration, can be used to pursue free agents this offseason.

Maybe, maybe not. This team does not have a strunning track record with identifying FA talent.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2006, 09:34 AM
Maybe, maybe not. This team does not have a strunning track record with identifying FA talent.

Nor did Minnesota when Krivsky was there.

"Payflex" is the opiate of the masses. It keeps the fans wishing and dreaming.

Deepred05
07-17-2006, 10:04 AM
My only problem with the trade is Clayton. If the Reds moved Phillips to short, I could understand their thinking a whole lot better.

GoReds
07-17-2006, 10:10 AM
Maybe, maybe not. This team does not have a strunning track record with identifying FA talent.

This FO doesn't have a track record in regards to free agents. Until they have a full offseason, we can't really judge either way.

Minnesota may not have had a great record while Krivsky was there, but then again, Krivsky wasn't the one calling the shots.

Keep in mind - having the money available doesn't always equate to big moves. Sometimes the best idea is to NOT spend the money.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 10:38 AM
This FO doesn't have a track record in regards to free agents. Until they have a full offseason, we can't really judge either way.

Until they prove to me otherwise, I'm assuming that "money saved" does not equal "talented free agent." This front office has to prove their worth, and at this point I have no great hope that the money supposedly saved by deals such as this will go towards anything meaningful. I hope I'm wrong, but history has not been kind.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 12:28 PM
Until they prove to me otherwise, I'm assuming that "money saved" does not equal "talented free agent." This front office has to prove their worth, and at this point I have no great hope that the money supposedly saved by deals such as this will go towards anything meaningful. I hope I'm wrong, but history has not been kind.

You mean money that went to, say, oh, a Dunn contract extension? Or the eating of a gaggle of bad contracts (albeit somewhat small ones)?

I have a number of concerns with this front office--willing to pony up for things isn't one of them.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 12:32 PM
I have a number of concerns with this front office--willing to pony up for things isn't one of them.

That the money saved from kearns and Lopez might be used to eat Milton's contract does not exactly instill me with great confidence.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 12:34 PM
That the money saved from kearns and Lopez might be used to eat Milton's contract does not exactly instill me with great confidence.

What difference does it make, finally? As long as more payroll is available to pay good players instead of bad ones, who cares?

RedFanAlways1966
07-17-2006, 12:42 PM
Until they prove to me otherwise, I'm assuming that "money saved" does not equal "talented free agent." This front office has to prove their worth, and at this point I have no great hope that the money supposedly saved by deals such as this will go towards anything meaningful. I hope I'm wrong, but history has not been kind.

Front office proof thus far... Arroyo, Phillips and David Ross. So far, so good. Yan and Mays... attempts to find something in a dry-pitching world. Not good choices, but better than the do-nothing world of Lindner and O'Brien.

Lindner no longer owns this team... Bob C. does. DOB no longer calls the shots on personnel, Krivsky does. History really means nothing. I prefer to look at the history of this team starting at around March of this year. That is the fair way to judge those in charge today.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 12:45 PM
Front office proof thus far... Arroyo, Phillips and David Ross. So far, so good.

None of those were big money contracts or FA acquisitions. Kudos to Kriv for picking them out...but I've also seen him pick Royce Clayton, Juan Castro, Esteban Yan and Cody Ross, and I just watched him trade our starting SS and RF for two average middle relievers.

Color me unconvinced.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 12:47 PM
What difference does it make, finally? As long as more payroll is available to pay good players instead of bad ones, who cares?

I don't believe that "saving money on contracts" means as much now as it did during the Lindner era. I believe Castellini is the type of owner who will spend when necessary if it will improve the team. Thus, the argument that the Kearns-lopez deal was a good thing because it frees up potential salary money rings a bit hollow with me, because I think the Reds have moved beyond having to jettison productive players primarily for salary considerations.

GoReds
07-17-2006, 12:52 PM
I don't believe that "saving money on contracts" means as much now as it did during the Lindner era. I believe Castellini is the type of owner who will spend when necessary if it will improve the team. Thus, the argument that the Kearns-lopez deal was a good thing because it frees up potential salary money rings a bit hollow with me, because I think the Reds have moved beyond having to jettison productive players primarily for salary considerations.

The Reds didn't suddenly become a large market team when Castellini bought the team - there are still and will always be budget concerns.

Come winter, if the "right" free agent is available, I expect the Reds may be in the mix. Not having Kearns and Lopez around makes that more of a possibility and less of a pipe dream. Either way, the Reds will rarely, if ever, be in the mix for the big name. The money is better spent on finding complimentary pieces to fill in the blanks. I have confidence in the current FO to do just that. Moreso now that they have the funds available.

Ltlabner
07-17-2006, 12:53 PM
Thus, the argument that the Kearns-lopez deal was a good thing because it frees up potential salary money rings a bit hollow with me, because I think the Reds have moved beyond having to jettison productive players primarily for salary considerations.

I think it's way to early to tell on this trade and all players involved are young enough that projections don't hold much water. I understand and support the rationale of the trade, however.

However, while we dissagree about the trade, I do agree with you about this. The money saved was $1.X million. A chunk of change but not enough to have any real impact this year or next. And while AK and Lopez are both going to become more expensive in the comming years my complaint isn't what it will do to the teams overall payroll and our flexibility with it. So I agree, that's a bad justfication for the trade.

My gripe with them becomming more expensive is will they improve at the same rate as their rate of pay? They produce well for what they make now. Triple their sallaries and will everybody be just as happy. I tend to doubt it.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 12:56 PM
I don't believe that "saving money on contracts" means as much now as it did during the Lindner era. I believe Castellini is the type of owner who will spend when necessary if it will improve the team. Thus, the argument that the Kearns-lopez deal was a good thing because it frees up potential salary money rings a bit hollow with me, because I think the Reds have moved beyond having to jettison productive players primarily for salary considerations.

I don't care how wealthy or how poor an owner you are, spending big bucks on players that don't warrant them is not at all smart.

toledodan
07-17-2006, 12:58 PM
His hitting far outweighs his defensive deficiencies.


it hasn't this season.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 01:00 PM
I don't care how wealthy or how poor an owner you are, spending big bucks on players that don't warrant them is not at all smart.

Not advocating that they do so--not at all. I'm simply not buying into the argument that the trade is justifiable because they now won't have to pay Lopez and Kearns big bucks next season. No one ever said they had to.

registerthis
07-17-2006, 01:02 PM
The Reds didn't suddenly become a large market team when Castellini bought the team - there are still and will always be budget concerns.

Of course, the Reds aren't turning into the Yankees. But I don't think they're as budget-conscious as they were during the Lindner era.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 01:02 PM
Not advocating that they do so--not at all. I'm simply not buying into the argument that the trade is justifiable because they now won't have to pay Lopez and Kearns big bucks next season. No one ever said they had to.

I don't think that's the ONLY reason to justify this trade (and I dislike the trade, incidentally); but it certainly shouldn't be the last reason to justify shipping out someone like Kearns.

Caveat Emperor
07-17-2006, 02:01 PM
That the money saved from kearns and Lopez might be used to eat Milton's contract does not exactly instill me with great confidence.

You've also got to factor in the idea that, with Kearns and Lopez out of the picture, the Reds will have to be in the market for another bat in the offseason at the 2B or SS position -- not the easiest or deepest market out there. If Denorfia bombs out, they'll also need to shopping for a corner infielder. So yeah, they saved a few bucks, but now they have to go out and drop money anyway.

The lack of a productive farm system continues to haunt the Reds.

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 02:04 PM
You've also got to factor in the idea that, with Kearns and Lopez out of the picture, the Reds will have to be in the market for another bat in the offseason at the 2B or SS position -- not the easiest or deepest market out there. If Denorfia bombs out, they'll also need to shopping for a corner infielder. So yeah, they saved a few bucks, but now they have to go out and drop money anyway.

The lack of a productive farm system continues to haunt the Reds.

I'm sure Phillips will be SS next season. So that leaves looking for a second baseman. I can live with a good defensive/weak offensive second baseman. And those kinds are everywhere.

ochre
07-17-2006, 02:07 PM
I'm sure Phillips will be SS next season. So that leaves looking for a second baseman. I can live with a good defensive/weak offensive second baseman. And those kinds are everywhere.
Just keep in mind, and this isn't conclusive proof of anything, but Lopez out performed Phillips at the same age at all levels. So you might be looking at a half year aberration from Phillips thus far.

**Phillips has made great strides plate discipline-wise, so he might have turned a corner.

Caveat Emperor
07-17-2006, 02:26 PM
I'm sure Phillips will be SS next season. So that leaves looking for a second baseman. I can live with a good defensive/weak offensive second baseman. And those kinds are everywhere.

You can go after a judy-hitting 2B with good defensive skills, but the question remains: where is the run production going to come from?

We'll take Dunn as a given -- he's going to hit 40+ big flies, score 100 runs, and drive 100 people in if he stays healthy. Who do you count on for the rest of your production? Brandon Phillips at SS? He's a BA-driven OBP hitter who has less than a full season of productivity under his belt. I'd put him at even money to have a fall off next season. Edwin Encarnacion at 3B? He's a better bet than BP, I'd say, but still unproven in the long haul. Chris Denorfia in RF? Hardly a sure thing, and probably not going to ever be confused for a great bat.

Are you going to count on Aurillia and Hatteberg to grossly outpreform their projections at 1B again? I'd place that as highly unlikely. An aging Ken Griffey Jr.? Want to count on him staying healthy again for a full season and not experiencing any drop-off in production? Behind the plate -- if they move LaRue like everyone expects, does anyone with a brain really expect Dave Ross will ever come close to repeating his numbers next year?

They're going to need to go buy a bat this offseason, if for no other reason than the fact that they now have too few "sure things" in this lineup for next season.

pedro
07-17-2006, 03:14 PM
Just keep in mind, and this isn't conclusive proof of anything, but Lopez out performed Phillips at the same age at all levels. So you might be looking at a half year aberration from Phillips thus far.

**Phillips has made great strides plate discipline-wise, so he might have turned a corner.

That may be true but due to the fact that Lopez may not have the glove to play MI IMO you have to judge him against 3B and then I think his bat may come into question.

ochre
07-17-2006, 03:26 PM
That may be true but due to the fact that Lopez may not have the glove to play MI IMO you have to judge him against 3B and then I think his bat may come into question.
He was a mid-800s OPS guy at AAA as a 22 year old. I'd take an 800 OPS from my 26-27 year old thirdbaseman/secondbaseman.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 03:41 PM
I'm sure thankful that those who dislike this trade have nothing to do with running the Cincinnati REDS.

Puffy
07-17-2006, 05:03 PM
I'm sure thankful that those who dislike this trade have nothing to do with running the Cincinnati REDS.

Nice.

And just what is your track record of success?

Falls City Beer
07-17-2006, 05:05 PM
I'm sure thankful that those who dislike this trade have nothing to do with running the Cincinnati REDS.

I think the Reds would be wise to have people who dislike the trade on board; nothing kills the progress of a group, a company, or a country like enforced unanimity of opinion. The worst companies to work for are echo chambers.

vaticanplum
07-17-2006, 05:07 PM
Mark Sheldon with a couple of interesting points (particularly about Krivsky) from the mailbag (typically one of the last places I go for information...):

I'm still actively seeking ways to make me feel better about this trade, but at least I'm being sort of successful.

Whenever the Reds make a trade of any kind, I usually brace myself for a flood of angry e-mails. Although I understand the fury brought on by this particular trade, I wish I saved the e-mails from some of the other deals Krivsky made since taking over but many of them essentially went like this:

How could the Reds give up a slugger and a potential 40-homer guy like Wily Mo Pena for Bronson Arroyo? Couldn't they have gotten more? Why did the Reds trade for a third catcher like David Ross? Who is David Ross? What was Krivsky thinking when he added a fourth second baseman like Brandon Phillips?

Now ... does anyone really miss Pena now? If you had control of the club for a day, would you undo the Ross or Phillips trades? How about the Arroyo deal? Me either.

Pardon the Bill Simmons-eque tangent and the one that's about to come (love Simmons' columns by the way). Those earlier deals have built Krivsky some credibility by now, and despite the steep price paid in last week's trade, it at least allows for some benefit of the doubt.

One other deal not involving the Reds also comes to mind. Following the 2003 season, the Twins dealt catcher A.J. Pierzynski to the Giants for reliever Joe Nathan and two prospects no one had heard of to make room for Joe Mauer behind the plate. Nathan, a setup man, was acquired to be a closer despite having never performed in that role before. Krivsky was Minnesota's assistant GM and its main NL scout at that time. Terry Ryan was the GM and pulled the trigger, but Krivsky's fingerprints were all over it. Nathan became a two-time All-Star closer. Boof Bonser made his big-league debut this year in the Twins' rotation.

And the other guy? It was lefty Francisco Liriano. Back then, he was in Class A ball coming off elbow surgery. Now he's an All-Star pitcher and a Rookie of the Year candidate.

Certainly, Krivsky's sterling reputation on deal-making is on the line after a trade like this. But was it the worst trade the Reds have made in their history? I'm not even sure it was the worst trade the Reds have made in the past year. (I still get Sean Casey trade related e-mails every week.)

We all know what the Reds gave up and have now seen a little bit of what they got. I won't go into a deep breakdown of the elements because it won't add up into anything that truly makes sense right now. Why didn't the Reds get more for what they gave up? Clearly, the market for pitchers is at a premium, and teams that have it to spare appear to hold all the cards.

I winced some when I heard Kearns was in the deal despite the Reds having Chris Denorfia and Ryan Freel for solid depth. Kearns seemed poised to break out offensively, and I would have liked to have seen that happen in Cincinnati. He was also one of their best defensive players. Clearly, he's been coveted by many other GMs for a while.

As for Lopez, even with his solid bat and good speed, it's usually not good when one of your weakest defensive players is the shortstop. He was prone to defensive mistakes (14 errors), and there's no mistaking that Krivsky and manager Jerry Narron both place a big emphasis on defense.

And Wagner? He lost points with the organization. Yes, he deserved to make the team out of Spring Training. He had the numbers. But with the Reds bullpen in disarray, that demotion could have been very brief, had he done anything positive in Triple-A. He responded with dismal performances and never deserved a callup.

After several days of thinking about it, this trade has grown on me. I honestly don't know if it will pan out in a positive way, but I do know that the Reds went into the break losers of 20 of 29 games with their playoff hopes fading. The club had to show it was willing to do what it takes to win, and maybe send a shockwave through the clubhouse, too.

This year has brought an unexpected opportunity for Cincinnati to be a playoff team for the first time in a long time. There have been too many rebuilding efforts and five-year plans in recent years under previous regimes. Teams that spend all of their time looking towards the future usually don't have one.

I think that's enough on that. Let's move on.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060717&content_id=1561001&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

registerthis
07-17-2006, 05:09 PM
I'm sure thankful that those who dislike this trade have nothing to do with running the Cincinnati REDS.

:rolleyes:

M2
07-17-2006, 05:58 PM
I'm sure thankful that those who dislike this trade have nothing to do with running the Cincinnati REDS.

Man, if I had a nickel for everytime I've heard variation of THAT in the 21st century ...

Might have been able to retire during the 2004-5 offseason alone.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 06:46 PM
It's just that the reasons given for not liking the trade have been nonsense.

The trade was made to obtain pitching.

Krivsky sold high and bought low. Kearns and Lopez are at their peaks in value, while Bray, Harris, and Thompson are at low-cost points of their careers.

traderumor
07-17-2006, 06:58 PM
Regardless of what the money is spent on, if an underlying principal of dealing Kearns and Lopez is to not get saddled with their arbitration awards that will not likely be commensurate with their production, then this management team is on the right track with such moves.

M2
07-17-2006, 07:43 PM
It's just that the reasons given for not liking the trade have been nonsense.

The trade was made to obtain pitching.

Krivsky sold high and bought low. Kearns and Lopez are at their peaks in value, while Bray, Harris, and Thompson are at low-cost points of their careers.

You've only sold high if you've gotten a big return in exchange for said player(s). For instance, by your definition the 1977 Mets sold Tom Seaver high. Ask a Mets fan about that deal and you'll likely hear the opinion that New York traded away a great player for a neglible return.

Obviously the trade was made to obtain pitching. Yet there's a big difference between obtaining guys with "pitcher" listed in their job titles and acquiring meaningful arms. The Reds signed Eric Milton, Cory Lidle and Paul Wilson. They re-signed Jimmy Haynes. They traded for Ramon Ortiz and Ryan Dempster. All of those guys were pitchers, but none of them actually helped the team's pitching.

Now the team has brought in Majewski (who has fairly forgettable stuff) and Bray (who's still a tad green and has longball issues). It's questionable as to whether they're going to make much of a difference this season. There are also a number of people who, no matter how bad the bullpen has been this season, maintain that the team's priority needed/needs to be the rotation. I know 3/5 of the current rotation makes me plenty queasy.

Now maybe prioritizing starting pitching (not to mention SS and CF defense) seems like nonsense to you and maybe you think that just because the team nominally acquired some guys to address the bullpen woes that it automatically means the problem is fixed, but from where I sit the Reds dealt away players who could have fetched things that should have been a higher priority in exchange for inadequate help in the relief corps.

In fact, in the grand scheme of things it's entirely possible (in fact probable) that the Reds just bought Majewski, Bray, Clayton, Harris and Thompson at what will be their all-time highs. Those guys may never be worth more than Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez again. Meanwhile I'm guessing Kearns and Lopez will be worth far more than the five-headed monster they just fetched at various points in the future. Unless Bray steps up to be a quality closer in the future, Austin and Felipe stand to be the top two talents from this trade. If so, then that would be a case of bleeding value on the Reds' part.

I'd be for that if I thought that value bleed had fetched something capable of making the Reds a serious threat today. However, Majewski and Bray, for the reasons I mentioned above, don't seem to fill the bill.

Eric_Davis
07-17-2006, 08:06 PM
Now the team has brought in Majewski (who has fairly forgettable stuff) and Bray (who's still a tad green and has longball issues). It's questionable as to whether they're going to make much of a difference this season. There are also a number of people who, no matter how bad the bullpen has been this season, maintain that the team's priority needed/needs to be the rotation. I know 3/5 of the current rotation makes me plenty queasy.


(M2, I agree with you 100% on everything the above paragraph says.)


Now maybe prioritizing starting pitching (not to mention SS and CF defense) seems like nonsense to you and maybe you think that just because the team nominally acquired some guys to address the bullpen woes that it automatically means the problem is fixed, but from where I sit the Reds dealt away players who could have fetched things that should have been a higher priority in exchange for inadequate help in the relief corps.


(I also agree with you 100% with what the "above" paragraph says.)


In fact, in the grand scheme of things it's entirely possible (in fact probable) that the Reds just bought Majewski, Bray, Clayton, Harris and Thompson at what will be their all-time highs. Those guys may never be worth more than Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez again. Meanwhile I'm guessing Kearns and Lopez will be worth far more than the five-headed monster they just fetched at various points in the future. Unless Bray steps up to be a quality closer in the future, Austin and Felipe stand to be the top two talents from this trade. If so, then that would be a case of bleeding value on the Reds' part.


(Quality young starting pitching is the most difficult commodity to obtain, so why not try to obtain quality young relief pitching? In Bray and Thompson, thye've done that, and in Harris, he's as someone said, probably projected to be another Lenny Harris (he said it facetiously, I think that's a compliment, though he's probably not as good a character as Lenny Harris based on his bashing of Bowden as he left the organization).)


I'd be for that if I thought that value bleed had fetched something capable of making the Reds a serious threat today. However, Majewski and Bray, for the reasons I mentioned above, don't seem to fill the bill.

Sorry about my comments being mixed in with yours above, but I don't know how to break down the different sections to comment on them individually.

As you know, I like the Craig Monroe's and Wilson Betemit's of this world...guys who can give you decent numbers and be relied upon to play every day if needed, who'll know that they are role players, not superstars.

It's in Thompson and Bray that the majority of the REDS's investment lies. Thompson will take five years to find out if it worked. Hope we're both here by then, and I hope Krivsky is, too.

Bray, we get to watch, as he learns to throw his changeup for strikes and not for homeruns. He doesn't have to be a "closer" to make this deal successful. If he can give us 90-110 innings per year with an average ERA under 4.00 for the next six years, then it will have been a good trade.

Nugget
07-17-2006, 09:20 PM
Having read a number of the Kearns/Lopez the essential issue would seem to be the value ascribed to Kearns/Lopez, including the value of their arbitration years.

On a value basis I think the REDS got very good value as they got two relievers who can help now, a pitching prospect and a utility IF. I would say Wags and Clayton are the throwins. The issues is that Kearns and Lopez are worth the two relievers straight up on their 2006 performances. Kearns is a good hitting outfielder who is the best defensive OF on the REDS but would not be top of the league. Lopez is just a hitter who can play shortstop and thats it. He has had trouble reproducing his stellar year last year and I'd lay money that he doesn't do as well again until 2009.

If you consider that Kyle Farnsworth and BJ Ryan got starter like money at the beginning of this year it would be an indication of the "value" of relievers. In Maj and Bray you have guys who are much younger than either of those two and are able to help the REDS now and in the future. Both Maj and Bray also have some development left. Also if Thompson turns into a Cueto I'd say that Kearns and Lopez were overvalued.

cincyinco
07-17-2006, 11:30 PM
In regards to D. Thompson - it was just last year quite a few scouts were raving about this guy, the strides he was making, his stuff. He's been called Oil Can Boyd Jr.

He's the real wildcard in this deal. If he can return to health, and stay healthy, and he reaches his ceiling, he may be a steal. Yes there is big risk, blah blah blah.. I dont want to get into that. I just want to point out that in another famed trade Krivsky was a part of netted a little known prospect named Francisco Liriano - a guy once injured for a long period of time also w/shoulder issues - and that turned out pretty well for the Twins.

Rojo
07-18-2006, 02:45 PM
It's just that the reasons given for not liking the trade have been nonsense.

I'm ok with the trade but don't think the reasons given for not like the trade are nonsense.
Some think we overpaid.

And we did.

But one thing I've learned is that sometimes you just have to over pay.

M2
07-18-2006, 03:22 PM
I'm ok with the trade but don't think the reasons given for not like the trade are nonsense.
Some think we overpaid.

And we did.

But one thing I've learned is that sometimes you just have to over pay.

And from the perspective of someone who doesn't like the trade, I'll add that I completely agree with the above statement. It's a huge gamble, but if it's the right gamble then I'll be giving a huge tip of the hat to Wayne Krivsky for digging deep to make the crucial move.

For me, people on both sides of this debate have made good points.

Ltlabner
07-18-2006, 03:25 PM
For me, people on both sides of this debate have made good points.

I agree totally. I've really enjoyed the disussion of yesterday and today. The emotions were calmer and I think we all had better perspectives.

That being said, I didn't get crap done at work yesterday thanks to Redszone!

princeton
07-18-2006, 03:26 PM
And from the perspective of someone who doesn't like the trade, I'll add that I completely agree with the above statement. It's a huge gamble, but if it's the right gamble then I'll be giving a huge tip of the hat to Wayne Krivsky for digging deep to make the crucial move.

now we can start arguing about the sort of results that make it the "right gamble"

it's definitely started a buzz. I know that I've been on the board more than I have in years.

Caveat Emperor
07-18-2006, 03:30 PM
now we can start arguing about the sort of results that make it the "right gamble"

it's definitely started a buzz. I know that I've been on the board more than I have in years.

I'd say it's the right gamble in two scenarios:

1. Reds make the post-season

2. Reds don't make the post-season, but get close enough (and fan interest/ticket sales gets high enough) that Castellini ups the payroll another $10-$20 million to bring in another starter, a couple more bullpen guys, and a bat in the offseason.

registerthis
07-18-2006, 03:31 PM
That being said, I didn't get crap done at work yesterday thanks to Redszone!

I learned to quit being bothered by that long, long ago. :)

ochre
07-18-2006, 03:47 PM
now we can start arguing about the sort of results that make it the "right gamble"

it's definitely started a buzz. I know that I've been on the board more than I have in years.
I think that is best evaluated by looking at where the Reds were positioned before the trade. I felt that they could contend next year and would really be a force in '08. What happened in this trade appears to be a win now at all costs type move. If it remains in isolation, it's a middling effort at best, as there are plenty of other holes that need to be addressed for a legit run to be made.

How does this move affect the 2 year out look? I think it has a generally negative impact, outside of any further moves. The pieces moved were likely more valuable individually, than grouped. Particularly in an offseason move. The Arroyo trade for a platoon outfielder being a nice offseason position player value baseline. I don't value relief pitchers nearly as highly as a starting pitcher. The problem with the Reds recent bullpens seems to have been that they have moved nearly entirely to loading up with old, proven veterens to fill those slots. Previous regimes (prior to O'Brien, he's the culprit) had done nicely by acquiring young fringe power arms to plug in en masse. That strategy had worked reasonably well. The problem became that they started locking those players in past their prime effective ages.

My hope is that the Reds can move Majewski for prime value near the deadline without really impacting their opportunities this year. To me that would show some real value mindedness. Seeing the market imbalances, it has to be considered, given the derth of impact position players in the Reds system. Bray I would generally try to hold onto, as he does seem to be a nice component going into what ought to be prime contention years.

Rojo
07-18-2006, 04:01 PM
Previous regimes (prior to O'Brien, he's the culprit) had done nicely by acquiring young fringe power arms to plug in en masse. That strategy had worked reasonably well. The problem became that they started locking those players in past their prime effective ages.

You've hit on another of the inherited problems. We failed to acquire and/or develop an even passable bullpenner in the last two years - unheard of for this organization.

oregonred
07-18-2006, 04:41 PM
You've hit on another of the inherited problems. We failed to acquire and/or develop an even passable bullpenner in the last two years - unheard of for this organization.

Exactly. The barren upper farm system left this team hopelessly exposed in the pen (which makes the Hancock move all the more puzzling)

Coffey's been the only young and intriguing pen arm we've developed since Willamson back in '99. Wagner gave us a couple months at the end of '04. Riedling teased us for half a season a while back. But zippo, nada, nothing -- which is the ironic part of JimBo being on the receiving end of the Reds recent trade.

wrg to middle relief and especially setup men the Reds "Replacement Player" baseline for stat comparisons has consistently been DFA fodder (too numerous and painful to list) and aging veterans in the ~1M a year range (Mercker, Weathers, Weber, White, Hammond, etc.). The Reds simply had nothing else better in house to even consider without a flyer on one of the AA guys.

With Maj, Bray and Coffey, we've got the presently blackhole bullpen line item box checked through 2010 on the cheap with some interesting arms. In the short term, we've got guys that can get meaningful outs (7th-9th) in what will soon be the first meaningful post July 31st games for anyone in a Cincinnati uniform since 1999.

Eric_Davis
06-21-2008, 05:05 PM
Most people who have said they have disliked the trade also seem to have forgotten the basic rule of Trading101: "Buy Low, Sell High".

Kearns has had nothing but absolutely horrible years since he's been in the Majors...he was even sent back to the minors in the last year or two because of how horrible he's been. He's finally put together a "decent" first half giving him the potential of one good season. Now is the time to sell.

Lopez was an All-Star last year. While he hasn't put together the All-Star numbers from last year, his 30 SB's, and other offensive production from the SS spot puts him among the elite SS's in the National League offensively. He's entering his prime (now that steroids are gone, 27 years old will be the prime year again), just like Kearns. Now is the time to sell.

Wagner on the other hand is being sold not while he's rising in his career, though with his birthday tomorrow, he's still a young 24. However, he is being sold to the G.M. who originally drafted him which places his value higher than with other G.M.'s around the league.

In return, we are getting five players, none of which are anywhere near their prime...Majewski being the closest, but since Majewski is the fourth or fifth best player of the ones the REDS received, that's OK.

The three best players the REDS received are Bray, Harris, and Thompson...all three being purchased when their value as very low.

This is a perfect example of a perfect trade. This is how winning organizations make trades and improve their franchises.

Krivsky gets an A+ for this trade. For those of you who don't like the trade, don't feel bad...you're like most G.M.'s...you want to look good within one year of the trade. Four years from now, the REDS will have gotten so much more out of this trade than the Nationals.

But it's not about getting the better of the other team.

As a result of this trade, the franchise is set up better in overall talent, and they've set up the "big payday" better. Lopez, Kearns, and Dunn would have all demanded big contract increases about the same time....they are set up a little better financially two years from now.

In any trade you want to get the best player in the deal, but you don't want that player to be the best player immediately, otherwise you're paying too much and buying too high.

Kearns and Lopez are the better players "right now". That's a "GOOD" thing. That's how you're supposed to make a trade. Trade the players who are better right now for the better players who'll be better later,...then sit back, be patient, and reap the rewards.

The A's have done this for years...the Twins have done this. The Braves have done this for years to the tune of 14 straight division titles. Not everybody gets it, in fact, most G.M.'s are clueless...that's why the same teams keep winning all the time.

We are blessed to have Krivsky and this new ownership in place who understand "the right way" to conduct business.

I look forward to many, many, more positive moves by Krivsky and his staff.

The guy who sits on his hands and does nothing does nothing and occasionally Krivsky will err in his judgement, but just like any business that has ups and downs, his will be like Boeing's...mostly, up, up, and away.!!!

Look! Up in the sky! It's a plane, it's a bird,....NO, it's SuperKriv!

Just wanted to say, "The results of the trade are exactly what I was referring to".

Eric_Davis
06-21-2008, 05:08 PM
Sorry about my comments being mixed in with yours above, but I don't know how to break down the different sections to comment on them individually.

As you know, I like the Craig Monroe's and Wilson Betemit's of this world...guys who can give you decent numbers and be relied upon to play every day if needed, who'll know that they are role players, not superstars.

It's in Thompson and Bray that the majority of the REDS's investment lies. Thompson will take five years to find out if it worked. Hope we're both here by then, and I hope Krivsky is, too.

Bray, we get to watch, as he learns to throw his changeup for strikes and not for homeruns. He doesn't have to be a "closer" to make this deal successful. If he can give us 90-110 innings per year with an average ERA under 4.00 for the next six years, then it will have been a good trade.


It just took having watched the progress of players for 40 years to see that Thompson and Bray were the reasons for the trade at the time.