PDA

View Full Version : Tony Larussa and GM didn't like the trade



Reds1
07-18-2006, 01:03 PM
I just talked to a friend of mine who just got back from a cardinals game. He is a friend of Larussa and went out to eat with him. Larussa actually drove him back to the hotel at 1am after eating post game. I don't have any reasons why, but Larussa said that the Reds got hosed in the deal. Nothing earth shattering, but I thought I would share that both the manager and GM of the cardinals think we gave up way too much. He's not the only person who thinks that. ;)

Go Reds

P.S. While at dinner Jimmy Leyland called and Larussa handed the phone over to my buddy who is from Evansville. Leyland was the manager of the tripletts long ago which was a local minor league team. He was big time surprised, but said it was very cool and Jimmy said how he liked the area, etc. Gotta run.

OnBaseMachine
07-18-2006, 01:06 PM
I thought it was a bad trade too, but LaRussa and Jocketty need to keep their mouth shut considering these are the same people that traded Dan Haren and Daric Barton for Mark Mulder.

Puffy
07-18-2006, 01:11 PM
Well I agree 1000% percent that the Reds got hosed, didn't LaRussa also say that the Reds made out with the Casey deal, in that they got a potential number 2 starter in Dave Williams?

So I'm not really too keen on LaRussa's acumen with regard to the Reds.

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 01:18 PM
Well I agree 1000% percent that the Reds got hosed, didn't LaRussa also say that the Reds made out with the Casey deal, in that they got a potential number 2 starter in Dave Williams?

So I'm not really too keen on LaRussa's acumen with regard to the Reds.

Yep, and many RedsZoners lauded the Dave Williams deal too, saying, "sure Casey was worth more, but we filled a need."

Puffy
07-18-2006, 01:19 PM
Yep, and many RedsZoners lauded the Dave Williams deal too, saying, "sure Casey was worth more, but we filled a need."

Yeah, along with my favorite - "he's better than what we had"

How'd that turn out for us?

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 01:29 PM
Yeah, along with my favorite - "he's better than what we had"

How'd that turn out for us?

That should be the official RedsZone Trade Response -- "he's better than what we had."

OldXOhio
07-18-2006, 01:31 PM
I thought it was a bad trade too, but LaRussa and Jocketty need to keep their mouth shut considering these are the same people that traded Dan Haren and Daric Barton for Mark Mulder.

I haven't seen anywhere that they've publicly stated an opinion on the trade.

And I think Jocketty has enough other good deals that makes his opinion worth noting.

pedro
07-18-2006, 01:31 PM
I don't like Tony Larussa so we're even.

Falls City Beer
07-18-2006, 01:33 PM
How's that Jeff Weaver deal workin' out?

MartyFan
07-18-2006, 01:34 PM
LaRussa thinks what? Oh man, maybe we better try to reverse the deal? Maybe the other teams won't like us anymore....OH NO!!!

registerthis
07-18-2006, 01:36 PM
...still waiting for Dusty Baker to weigh in.

princeton
07-18-2006, 01:38 PM
Yep, and many RedsZoners lauded the Dave Williams deal too, saying, "sure Casey was worth more, but we filled a need."

You're reading too many posts. Stick to mine, and you'll do fine ;)

as for the Cards' brass, I believe that they're pleased-- the Cards are all about jumping on talented players that other teams no longer like. But then they wonder why their team underachieves.

oneupper
07-18-2006, 01:42 PM
Thanks for sharing, Reds1!
:)

Strikes Out Looking
07-18-2006, 02:26 PM
This thread gives a number of reasons why the Genius isn't a GM!

Man, I hate the Cardinals. Go Reds!

Reds1
07-18-2006, 02:33 PM
I haven't seen anywhere that they've publicly stated an opinion on the trade.

And I think Jocketty has enough other good deals that makes his opinion worth noting.


That's right. This was a private statement. I don't know in what context, etc. I'd take it at face value. I just made it public to Redzoners. I just thought I'd share. It's not too often I'm privyed (sp) to comments from the competition. :)

I guess can I share my opinion I am happy the cardinals signed Jeff Weaver. :evil:

Jpup
07-18-2006, 03:13 PM
Hey LaRussa, two words for you.

Caveat Emperor
07-18-2006, 03:29 PM
How's that Jeff Weaver deal workin' out?

He'll let you know as soon as they finish banging the dents out of the right field fence.

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 03:40 PM
How's that Jeff Weaver deal workin' out?

Considering that they acquired him for next to nothing, it's not so bad.

VR
07-18-2006, 03:45 PM
Considering that they acquired him for next to nothing, it's not so bad.

who's on the hook for the remainder of the 8.3M this year?

oregonred
07-18-2006, 03:49 PM
who's on the hook for the remainder of the 8.3M this year?

Good question. Let's hope the Cards got stuck with a good part of that turd.

of course they just went over 2M in attendance last night so they won't be in the soup line anytime soon.

dsmith421
07-18-2006, 03:54 PM
It's nice to see the Cards thrashing around for pitching help, but it's certainly not a unique thing right now. Their acquisition of Weaver is no more desperate than the Yankees grabbing Ponson, the Red Sox getting Jason Johnson, the Mets continuing to start Jose Lima, etc. And most of those teams are going to the playoffs.

Pitching is at a premium, which I think is one particularly cogent argument for the pro-trade faction. (I still don't like the outlay, but understand the argument).

Ltlabner
07-18-2006, 04:06 PM
Pitching is at a premium, which I think is one particularly cogent argument for the pro-trade faction. (I still don't like the outlay, but understand the argument).

That's pretty much the reason for my support (at least of the rationale of the trade). I'd rather risk overpaying now and getting something that can help now and in the future. The option is waiting around and either having nothing left, or the prices be even higher.

It's a gamble that could blow up big. That is for sure.

The anti-trade folks have said we aren't going to the playoffs anyway so why try this year (or words to that effect). I think there is some value in continuing to operate under the idea of aiming for the playoffs. It communicates to the team to keep working and it communicates to the fans that ownership is not the same as previous ragiemes.

If the players keep playing hard and we end up in 2nd place I think we can still be proud since we were picked to be last. If we don't make the move and basically say, "the season is over" why should the team even compete? With the trade it keeps them focused on at least trying to win. That is a valuable mindset to foster. Winning is indeed contagious.

For most fans, seeing the ownership out their gambling but trying to improve the team communicates a desire to win. Something sorely lacking arguably dating back to the BRM era. If the team continue to stay competitive (how ever you define that) and ends up 2nd or even 3rd, I think the fans will be far more supportive than if the owership did nothing until the offseason and we fade away to 4th or worse. That fan support is worth something.

Not saying this is the reason for the trade, but I think this holds some water.How much water? Beats me.

KronoRed
07-18-2006, 04:43 PM
Yep, and many RedsZoners lauded the Dave Williams deal too, saying, "sure Casey was worth more, but we filled a need."
He did fill a need, the need that Jimmy Anderson used to fill..5th day batting practice

Joe Mays does it now

Puffy
07-18-2006, 04:51 PM
That's pretty much the reason for my support (at least of the rationale of the trade). I'd rather risk overpaying now and getting something that can help now and in the future. The option is waiting around and either having nothing left, or the prices be even higher.



Why are those the only two options? What about the third equally reasonable option that as the deadline gets closer and teams start to fall out of the race and become sellers (like the Brewers, Rockies and Dbacks) and the cost of relief pitching goes down?

Ltlabner
07-18-2006, 04:59 PM
Why are those the only two options? What about the third equally reasonable option that as the deadline gets closer and teams start to fall out of the race and become sellers (like the Brewers, Rockies and Dbacks) and the cost of relief pitching goes down?

I didn't say those are the only two options. Those are two options that are far worse than overpaying now.

Your scenario is yet another optioin. As I've said in other posts, if the trade deadline approaches, and a bunch of good to impact bullpen arms are suddenly available for chaf and castoffs than The Kriv's gamble was a big mistake.

Yet another option is that we wait around in hopes of cheeper pitching and we fade from contention (that was what the rest of my above post was about). The players say "who cares" and another 1/2 season on loosing mentatlity is fostered and the fans see that this is another stinker year. Doesn't do much for revenues.

Yet another option is that we've definatley secured two arms now, and that if prices really go down, we get even a few more at the dead line. Certinally not the best option, but one none the less.

Falls City Beer
07-18-2006, 05:08 PM
Considering that they acquired him for next to nothing, it's not so bad.

But here's the thing, and you'd be saying the same thing if Krivsky had acquired him:

bringing him in means using him: so now the Cards will be treated to at *least* two or three more "let's-just-make-sure-he's-not-completely-toast" starts that will almost assuredly go down as games in the loss column for the Cardinals.

That they only surrendered a minor league outfielder doesn't remove the fact that they acquired a liability and allowed him to damage their pennant run (cf. Joe Mays' arguments heard ad nauseam on here--ones that I agree with incidentally).

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 05:23 PM
who's on the hook for the remainder of the 8.3M this year?

Ownership approved the deal, and they're the ones who set the payroll. If they want to gamble $4.15M on him, who cares? They're willing to keep spending to make their team better. Besides, they got cash back from the Angels in the deal.


But here's the thing, and you'd be saying the same thing if Krivsky had acquired him:

bringing him in means using him: so now the Cards will be treated to at *least* two or three more "let's-just-make-sure-he's-not-completely-toast" starts that will almost assuredly go down as games in the loss column for the Cardinals.

That they only surrendered a minor league outfielder doesn't remove the fact that they acquired a liability and allowed him to damage their pennant run (cf. Joe Mays' arguments heard ad nauseam on here--ones that I agree with incidentally).

Upside. Weaver's been a lot better a lot more recently than the likes of Mays, who has been straight-up awful since 2001. Plus Weaver now has Dave "The Miracle Worker" Duncan pouring a bucket over his head and signing W-A-T-E-R into his hands.

I was in favor of the Reds acquiring Weaver and sticking him in the bullpen. The Cardinals won't hesitate to switch Weaver to the bullpen if he keeps getting bombed.

REDREAD
07-18-2006, 05:28 PM
Well I agree 1000% percent that the Reds got hosed, didn't LaRussa also say that the Reds made out with the Casey deal, in that they got a potential number 2 starter in Dave Williams?

So I'm not really too keen on LaRussa's acumen with regard to the Reds.

In all fairness, that might've been LaRussa speaking diplomatically to the press.

I bet LaRussa is a lot more honest in a dinner conversation with a friend.

I mean, no baseball official ever goes on record as saying a team got hosed in a trade. If they give their opinion, it's always as an "anonymous source".
It's just bad business to mock another club that you might want to trade with in the future.

REDREAD
07-18-2006, 05:30 PM
Considering that they acquired him for next to nothing, it's not so bad.

Yep, it's just like our Yan trade. You don't expect a whole lot, but if you can get the guy for nothing, it's worth a try. It might "be better than what we have now" :)

Ltlabner
07-18-2006, 05:35 PM
Yep, it's just like our Yan trade. You don't expect a whole lot, but if you can get the guy for nothing, it's worth a try. It might "be better than what we have now"

Yes because we should only trade for or acquire proven all-stars and have no sub-par players that are improvements over the current level. We all know every team has unlimited funds and that every team in MLB has nothing but solid, all-star caliber players at every position including the backups and spot players. ;)

Falls City Beer
07-18-2006, 05:35 PM
Yep, it's just like our Yan trade. You don't expect a whole lot, but if you can get the guy for nothing, it's worth a try. It might "be better than what we have now" :)

Actually, it's quite a bit different from the Yan trade--a reliever doesn't do nearly the damage that starter is capable of doing, and since Weaver is a "name" pitcher (and presumably the Cards are shelling out some cash for the guy), he's going to get way too many chances to prove what I already knew about Weaver before the trade went down: he's done.

So the Cards can count on watching the Grand Guignol for several more starts (in order to "justify" the move). The Cards would have been much better off with Ponson.

redsmetz
07-18-2006, 05:38 PM
Actually, it's quite a bit different from the Yan trade--a reliever doesn't do nearly the damage that starter is capable of doing, and since Weaver is a "name" pitcher (and presumably the Cards are shelling out some cash for the guy), he's going to get way too many chances to prove what I already knew about Weaver before the trade went down: he's done.

So the Cards can count on watching the Grand Guignol for several more starts (in order to "justify" the move). The Cards would have been much better off with Ponson.

According to Cot's web page:
acquired in trade 7/06 after being DFA (by LA Angels) 6/06 (Angels to pay significant amount of approximately $4.15M remaining on contract)

Falls City Beer
07-18-2006, 05:42 PM
According to Cot's web page:

Again, the cash really doesn't make a difference. That someone like Weaver stays on the 25-man roster in such a premium position as starter is the problem.

VR
07-18-2006, 05:42 PM
:dunno:
Ownership approved the deal, and they're the ones who set the payroll. If they want to gamble $8.3M on him, who cares? They're willing to keep spending to make their team better.

No one cares, if they're not interested in poor baseball/ business decisions.

But if they signed Weaver as opposed to getting Bray, Majewski, Thompson and Harris, I'd really be concerned about the direction of the team. But they got guys that will make them better this year, and might be a solid force for years to come. If Thompson is a $1 scratch off lottery ticket as M2 analogized, Weaver is a $50 scratch off lottery ticket, already scratched and proven to be a loser.

Reds had a glut of offensive talent, and a drought in relief pitching. They finally decided to try something new. It cost them a bit, to the point of losing the trade on paper. But they dont' give out WS rings for winning trades, they give them out for winning ballgames. :beerme:

Reds1
07-18-2006, 06:27 PM
This thread sure did take a change of topics. LOL

Johnny Footstool
07-18-2006, 06:50 PM
This thread sure did take a change of topics. LOL

I think there is only one topic on everyone's minds right now, and we're just dealing with variations of it.


No one cares, if they're not interested in poor baseball/ business decisions...
The Cards obviously felt it was a good business decision. Get Weaver for a huge discount and take a chance that he still has something left and that Duncan can bring it out of him. The potential gain outweighed the cost.

Whereas with the Reds, the potential gain doesn't outweigh the high cost paid, at least not in my mind.


But they dont' give out WS rings for winning trades, they give them out for winning ballgames.

Losing trades tends to make it more difficult to win the World Series.

Swampturkey
07-18-2006, 08:56 PM
Once again, I am offering Weaver to your Reds. I'll buy you all tickets to a Reds game if you take him. Sure would save me a lot of money in therapy bills after what Weaver would do to my head if my birds keep him.

Marty and Joe
07-18-2006, 09:02 PM
Once again, I am offering Weaver to your Reds. I'll buy you all tickets to a Reds game if you take him. Sure would save me a lot of money in therapy bills after what Weaver would do to my head if my birds keep him.

Weaver for Yan and you pay the rest of the 2006 salary? :D

Swampturkey
07-18-2006, 10:05 PM
Yan? No way. Been there...done that. Tell you what, I'll throw in Marquis to sweeten the pot. You don't have to give us anything in return.