PDA

View Full Version : Wickman To The Braves



Krusty
07-20-2006, 02:22 PM
Indians trade Wickman to Braves
1:27 p.m.

PAUL HOYNES
Plain Dealer Reporter

The Indians traded Bob Wickman, their all-time saves leader, to Atlanta on Thursday afternoon for a minor league prospect.

The Indians will hold a 2:45 p.m. conference call with general manager Mark Shapiro to announce the trade.

Wickman, who made his 750th appearance in the Tribe's 6-4 victory over the Angels on Wednesday, is 15-for-18 in save situations this year. Altanta, struggling to reach the postseason for the 15th consecutive year in the National League East, has had bullpen problems all season.

The Indians signed Wickman over the winter to a one-year $5 million
contract. He went 45-for-50 in save situations last year for the Tribe.

Wickman passed Doug Jones as the Tribe's all-time saves leader on May 7 against Seattle. It was Wickman's 138th save as an Indian.

Before Wickman, the Indians traded veterans Jason Johnson and Eduardo Perez since falling out of the American League Central race. The prospect they're receiving from the Braves will not have an impact on this year's big-league team.

Wickman, with 10 years in the big leagues and five years with the same team, had to approve the deal.

oneupper
07-20-2006, 02:27 PM
Bad news. Braves still have 3 games in Cincy.

edabbs44
07-20-2006, 02:39 PM
Single A catcher for Wickman. AK/Lopez for Bray and Maj.

Schuerholz>Krivsky

pedro
07-20-2006, 02:53 PM
Single A catcher for Wickman. AK/Lopez for Bray and Maj.

Schuerholz>Krivsky


wickman is a 37 yr old soon to be free agent who had a no trade clause.

but schuerholz is a better gm.

kheidg-
07-20-2006, 03:05 PM
Yea, the Braves certainly didn't give up much at all for Wickman. A rookie ball catcher, he batted over .300 last year, but it was rookie ball.

edabbs44
07-20-2006, 03:09 PM
wickman is a 37 yr old soon to be free agent who had a no trade clause.

but schuerholz is a better gm.
There is still a gigantic gap btw a A ball catcher and what the Nats got. No trade clause or not, I think Kriv got nervous. Maybe the mkt isn;t as high as Wayne thought.

HotCorner
07-20-2006, 03:28 PM
I would compare this trade to the Reds trade for Everyday Eddie. Aging veteran closer for an average prospect.

Tommyjohn25
07-20-2006, 03:31 PM
I would compare this trade to the Reds trade for Everyday Eddie. Aging veteran closer for an average prospect.


Exactly, but when Krivsky did it he was lauded as an idiot by most on this forum. Schuerholz does it and he's just genius. :rolleyes:

edabbs44
07-20-2006, 03:32 PM
Exactly, but when Krivsky did it he was lauded as an idiot by most on this forum. Schuherholtz does it and he's just genius. :rolleyes:
The Guardado trade, IMO, was fine. The Kearns deal was not. And Kriv gave up a AA pitcher for Guardado while Schuerhloz gave up an A catcher.

paulrichjr
07-20-2006, 03:49 PM
I don't think the trade was all that good either BUT there is a big difference in my opinion. We got 2 young and very cheap pitchers while Wickman is old and very expensive. A cheap pitcher will cost you more than an expensive one...(Period)

KronoRed
07-20-2006, 03:52 PM
Worry about the Braves

BoydsOfSummer
07-20-2006, 04:12 PM
Was Max Ramirez the catcher?

BuckeyeRedleg
07-20-2006, 04:21 PM
I don't think the trade was all that good either BUT there is a big difference in my opinion. We got 2 young and very cheap pitchers while Wickman is old and very expensive. A cheap pitcher will cost you more than an expensive one...(Period)


Young and cheap. Those are the key words. Since those words are such a key, I take it that the trade with Washington wasn't really about this year, like Wayne wants everyone to believe.

If it's about this year, you take Wickman for a nothing prospect (like the Braves did).

Instead, other than Bray, we basically got nothing and gave up a whole helluva lot.

edabbs44
07-20-2006, 04:24 PM
Was Max Ramirez the catcher?
Yes.

BoydsOfSummer
07-20-2006, 04:43 PM
Nice catching prospect. After the year Salty is having,Max might be as good a prospect.

Johnny Footstool
07-20-2006, 05:10 PM
Exactly, but when Krivsky did it he was lauded as an idiot by most on this forum. Schuerholz does it and he's just genius. :rolleyes:

Wickman isn't any better than what the Braves already have, IMO. He comes with almost as many question marks as Guardado did, but they got him for a lot less than Travis Chick.

Falls City Beer
07-20-2006, 05:12 PM
Wickman's better than Guardado, Majewski, and for the time being Bray.

Who cares what he does next season?

edabbs44
07-20-2006, 05:24 PM
Wickman's better than Guardado, Majewski, and for the time being Bray.

Who cares what he does next season?
Exactly...Kriv could have traded a few lower level guys for a few arms and then rebuilt the pen next year. Still would have had AK and FeLo. If he had to trade them, fine, but it could have waited till the offseason and could have gotten more.

WVRed
07-20-2006, 05:27 PM
I feel like a genius for trading for Fausto Carmona.

Just sayin'.

redsfanmia
07-20-2006, 05:28 PM
Exactly...Kriv could have traded a few lower level guys for a few arms and then rebuilt the pen next year. Still would have had AK and FeLo. If he had to trade them, fine, but it could have waited till the offseason and could have gotten more.
How could Wayne have gotten more for Kearns and Lopez in the off season? These two underacheivers were due big raises thus lowering thier value even more IMO.

Col_ IN Reds fan
07-20-2006, 05:42 PM
Cleveland should have checked with the Reds , they probably could have pried away Dunn for some relief pitching.:) :) :)

pedro
07-20-2006, 05:51 PM
I wonder if Wickman woudl have waived his no trade to come to cincinnati?

Doc. Scott
07-20-2006, 05:55 PM
I wonder if Wickman woudl have waived his no trade to come to cincinnati?

With Montgomery Inn ribs, LaRosa's and Skyline? You betcha he would have.

Doc. Scott
07-20-2006, 05:58 PM
Wickman's better than Guardado, Majewski, and for the time being Bray.

Who cares what he does next season?

I wouldn't place Wickman as better than Guardado. In fact, I don't think I'd place him as much better than any of the other three, not any more.

Although the price for him was still fairly low, no matter how you slice it. Atlanta was dealing from a position of strength, so it makes Ramirez look not as good when you see him behind Brian McCann and Jarrod Saltalamacchia on the depth chart. But I bet you he's as good a catching prospect as anyone the Reds have (talk about damning with faint praise).

REDREAD
07-20-2006, 06:20 PM
Wickman's better than Guardado, Majewski, and for the time being Bray.

Who cares what he does next season?

Great summary. Why sell Kearns and Lopez low for the purpose of winning NOW, when there's plenty of vet bullpen arms for short term help that could be gotten cheaply? The market for relievers has never been as high as Wayne would have us to believe.

And from what I've seen of Majewski, he's not exactly a stud that you build your pen around. He's adequate, but not spectacular. Certainly not worth Kearns.

Nugget
07-20-2006, 07:44 PM
At this moment in time a good hitting catcher is probably just as good as or even better than a mediocre pticher.

Eric_Davis
07-20-2006, 08:01 PM
Exactly, but when Krivsky did it he was lauded as an idiot by most on this forum. Schuerholz does it and he's just genius. :rolleyes:

So true...

GAC
07-20-2006, 09:22 PM
Wickman, with a 5 Mil/yr salary, would be a rent-a-player.

The younger arms we got are not.

Cleveland has been trying to unload him for some time.

Krivksy knew he was out there, and said pass. I don't blame him one bit either. It was not a cheap price.

edabbs44
07-20-2006, 09:48 PM
Wickman, with a 5 Mil/yr salary, would be a rent-a-player.

The younger arms we got are not.

Cleveland has been trying to unload him for some time.

Krivksy knew he was out there, and said pass. I don't blame him one bit either. It was not a cheap price.
I wonder if Wickman will bring a draft pick when he leaves the Braves in the off-season.

KronoRed
07-20-2006, 10:12 PM
If he gets his save total up he will.

Unassisted
07-20-2006, 10:53 PM
I can understand people being mad at a trade that sends away their favorite Red.

I also think a lot of folks on both sides of the fence would have been steamed at the big paydays those guys would have gotten next spring in arbitration, after a season of and in Kearns' case, a career of underperformance.

I hate overpaying, too. But I can accept it more in the thick of a pennant chase than after a mediocre season.

Back to the topic. This is a nice deal for Atlanta. It will be fun to see whether Guardado or Wickman helps their new team more over the next 10 weeks.

SteelSD
07-20-2006, 11:47 PM
Wickman, with a 5 Mil/yr salary, would be a rent-a-player.

The younger arms we got are not.

Cleveland has been trying to unload him for some time.

Krivksy knew he was out there, and said pass. I don't blame him one bit either. It was not a cheap price.

Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

Secondly, wouldn't the filling of holes this season with a short-term fix or two allow further evaluation time and development time for possible minor league options such as Brad Salmon, Phil Dumatrait, David Shafer, Calvin Medlock, Carlos Guevara. And yes, might not Homer Bailey possibly make the show in a Johathan Papelbon 2005 capacity in 2007 while working on his secondary pitches? Might not the use of the best of the non-Baily options this season provide as much as we might see from Bill Bray in 2006?

Lastly, do we believe that Kearns and Lopez couldn't possibly garner a Majewski/Bray return after July 2006? Is it entrirely likely that either or both players would suddenly become immovable objects considering that Washington just acquired them knowing what they'll likely cost going forward? Do we really think this was a "move it or lose it" scenario?

Seems to me that if the thrust is to produce a winning team and thereby increasing revenue, then acquiring equitable arms- regardless of age or how long they're signed- is a shrewd move consdersidering that value-equitable options to the Kearns/Lopez trade should still be around.

The last question is whether or not the Indians would have accepted anything in the Reds system versus Max Ramirez. Well, Max Ramirez projects projects decently. His IsoD has been climbing. He's a low-level guy at age 21 (he'll be 22 in November). He's smallish (5'11", 170 lbs). So he's got warts like most low-A guys. I can't see how there's not someone in the Reds' system who was value-equitable to Max Ramirez.

Low-level prospect(s) for Bob Wickman, the potential to acquire gap relievers on the cheap who could possibly garner draft picks if tendered, options in the minors, and a treadeable Kearns and Lopez still on board. Hmn.

oregonred
07-21-2006, 12:04 AM
Cool another thread rehashing the big trade :)

The Guardado deal looks better than the Wickman deal just completed (assuming the Braves are taking on the 2M+ left). I think the Reds are paying about 800K for Everyday.

I doubt Wickman would wave his no-trade to be a setup man but you could have closer by committee I suppose. He's looking for some $$$ again next season as a closer. No one is going to turn down a deal to be a Braves pitcher.

AL pitchers are probably feeling like its AAA when they hit the Senior Circuit.

Falls City Beer
07-21-2006, 12:06 AM
And from what I've seen of Majewski, he's not exactly a stud that you build your pen around. He's adequate, but not spectacular. Certainly not worth Kearns.

Not worth an Olmedo.

Johnny Footstool
07-21-2006, 01:05 AM
Wickman has been getting by with smoke and mirrors for a couple of years. I think Guardado's stuff is better, as illustrated by his good K/9 ratio, but I worry about that frayed labrum (or is it a rotator cuff?) that he's carrying around.

I do think the Reds gave up more for Guardado than the Braves did for Wickman, though.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 08:45 AM
Ironically, Wickman and Majewski have almost identical numbers. Forgive me for pimping my own thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48929

GAC
07-21-2006, 09:10 AM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

Didn't we already do that in the Everyday Eddie deal? Gave up a low-level prospect for a closer.

And it has already been mentioned - but I doubt Wickman would have came here for a set-up role.

smith288
07-21-2006, 09:15 AM
I cant understand why so many are so quick to compare the Indians trade with the Reds trade with Wash instead of comparing it to the Reds trade with Seattle.

Its like they are purposely looking for a reason, any reason to go after Krivsky about the washington trade which was about this season and the future instead of just right now (Wickman trade)

oneupper
07-21-2006, 09:22 AM
Didn't we already do that in the Everyday Eddie deal? Gave up a low-level prospect for a closer.

And it has already been mentioned - but I doubt Wickman would have came here for a set-up role.

Do we know how much cash came back with Eddie?

In any case, I agree with GAC. The Wickman deal is comparable to the Guardado deal.

The Nats deal is a whole different animal.

pedro
07-21-2006, 10:03 AM
Here's the thing I'm wondering about...

You've got cash resources and player resources. I've always been of the opinion that you utilize cash resources before player resources because player resources are more difficult to replace.

One of the many pro-trade arguments I've seen is that acquiring better middle relief could potentially lead to cash resource gains if those acquisitions could bolster the Reds to the point at which attendance gains were probable.

I'm not saying you've made that argument. However, if the action of acquiring Majewski would lead to attendance-driven revenue gain, wouldn't the acquisition of a similar pitcher (Wickman) do the same? And, if so, wouldn't the revenue gain for late this season and next season (should the Reds make the playoffs), potentially offset the rest of Wickman's contract for 2006 (<2.5M)?

Secondly, wouldn't the filling of holes this season with a short-term fix or two allow further evaluation time and development time for possible minor league options such as Brad Salmon, Phil Dumatrait, David Shafer, Calvin Medlock, Carlos Guevara. And yes, might not Homer Bailey possibly make the show in a Johathan Papelbon 2005 capacity in 2007 while working on his secondary pitches? Might not the use of the best of the non-Baily options this season provide as much as we might see from Bill Bray in 2006?

Lastly, do we believe that Kearns and Lopez couldn't possibly garner a Majewski/Bray return after July 2006? Is it entrirely likely that either or both players would suddenly become immovable objects considering that Washington just acquired them knowing what they'll likely cost going forward? Do we really think this was a "move it or lose it" scenario?

Seems to me that if the thrust is to produce a winning team and thereby increasing revenue, then acquiring equitable arms- regardless of age or how long they're signed- is a shrewd move consdersidering that value-equitable options to the Kearns/Lopez trade should still be around.

The last question is whether or not the Indians would have accepted anything in the Reds system versus Max Ramirez. Well, Max Ramirez projects projects decently. His IsoD has been climbing. He's a low-level guy at age 21 (he'll be 22 in November). He's smallish (5'11", 170 lbs). So he's got warts like most low-A guys. I can't see how there's not someone in the Reds' system who was value-equitable to Max Ramirez.

Low-level prospect(s) for Bob Wickman, the potential to acquire gap relievers on the cheap who could possibly garner draft picks if tendered, options in the minors, and a treadeable Kearns and Lopez still on board. Hmn.


I hear a lot of noise from you about how stupid the trade was and how valuable Lopez was.

How do you rectify the the fact that Lopez was incapable of playing his position defensively, may have already had his career year, and was about to get really expensive with your contention that he somehow had ton of trade value? Because frankly I don't see it.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 10:35 AM
Not worth an Olmedo.
What a load of crap, seriously a tweener judy middle infielder vs a diminished resource in a tight market.

What a load....

pedro
07-21-2006, 10:38 AM
Not worth an Olmedo.

that's ridiculous.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-21-2006, 10:49 AM
What a load of crap, seriously a tweener judy middle infielder vs a diminished resource in a tight market.

What a load....

I think he was exaggerating a bit, but the point was made nevertheless.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 10:50 AM
I think he was exaggerating a bit, but the point was made nevertheless.
What point? The one that makes him his new punching bag?

When FCB trots out one positive thing about a Reds player please drop me a PM.

I have to see that.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-21-2006, 10:58 AM
What point? The one that makes him his new punching bag?

When FCB trots out one positive thing about a Reds player please drop me a PM.

I have to see that.

Just the point that Majewski is not that good.

I know, dead horse, but I agree with him.

I'm not basing his argument on anything other than that.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 12:30 PM
Just the point that Majewski is not that good.

But he's *certainly* worth an Olmedo.

And majewski is a better reliever than what we've seen of him so far. He may not be 2005 good, but he'll be serviceable.

PuffyPig
07-21-2006, 01:17 PM
I wonder if Wickman will bring a draft pick when he leaves the Braves in the off-season.

Only if you offer him arbitration.Which you can't do.

PuffyPig
07-21-2006, 01:20 PM
Wickman's better than Guardado, Majewski, and for the time being Bray.



Wickman isn't better than any of them, but other than that, I agree with you.

Just ask Dunn.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 01:33 PM
I hear a lot of noise from you about how stupid the trade was and how valuable Lopez was.

How do you rectify the the fact that Lopez was incapable of playing his position defensively, may have already had his career year, and was about to get really expensive with your contention that he somehow had ton of trade value? Because frankly I don't see it.
He's still young. He's still productive as a SS. He had a great year last year. He's on pace for .254/.344/.372 with 94 runs, 16 HRs, 52 RBI and 40 steals, which isn't as bad as some would make him out to be (esp since he has been hitting at the top of the order a lot).

OK, the errors are there. Where aren't the errors? We, as fans, have put up with Dunn in LF, Griffey in CF and EE at 3rd. That isn't really gold glove central and if defense is as important to the Reds as they claim, something would be done with those guys (i.e., moving positions in the OF).

And for everyone who harps on FeLo and how bad he has been, don't forget AK was involved in this deal. I think losing him was a lot worse than losing FeLo. The two of them together and this trade still doesn't make sense over a week later. I think Wayne was pulling damage control when he started talking about the market for relievers. I seriously doubt the market will be as high as what he paid...ever.

pedro
07-21-2006, 01:42 PM
He's still young. He's still productive as a SS. He had a great year last year. He's on pace for .254/.344/.372 with 94 runs, 16 HRs, 52 RBI and 40 steals, which isn't as bad as some would make him out to be (esp since he has been hitting at the top of the order a lot).

OK, the errors are there. Where aren't the errors? We, as fans, have put up with Dunn in LF, Griffey in CF and EE at 3rd. That isn't really gold glove central and if defense is as important to the Reds as they claim, something would be done with those guys (i.e., moving positions in the OF).

And for everyone who harps on FeLo and how bad he has been, don't forget AK was involved in this deal. I think losing him was a lot worse than losing FeLo. The two of them together and this trade still doesn't make sense over a week later. I think Wayne was pulling damage control when he started talking about the market for relievers. I seriously doubt the market will be as high as what he paid...ever.


color me unimpressed.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 01:54 PM
color me unimpressed.
It's amazing how selective the board is. There's one thread where everyone is wetting themselves about how tremendous Hatteberg has been to this team and this one where Lopez was single-handedly taking Cincy to the cellar.

It's very easy to cherry pick what stats you want and make that player look good or bad. FeLo's on pace to up his walk total from 57 to 86 in one season. How come no one is talking about him avoiding outs, scoring runs, etc etc etc? If he was better liked then this could show his growth at the plate, becoming more patient, selective, etc. But since somehow he has become the scapegoat, no one cares.

It's just very funny.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 02:03 PM
I wonder if Wickman will bring a draft pick when he leaves the Braves in the off-season.

I think the Braves won't offer him salary arb. With all those saves Wickman has, that's a very high risk thing. They already got burned by Maddux accepting arb when they figured he wouldn't.

REDREAD
07-21-2006, 02:08 PM
I think he was exaggerating a bit, but the point was made nevertheless.

It got a good laugh out of me :laugh: I'm sure he was exaggerating, but it brings up a good point.

If you trade minor league fodder for a Wickman/Guarado and the vet reliever fails, you aren't out much.

If you trade an 834 OPS rightfielder with above average defense, and that reliever fails, you've really set the club back. I'm not saying that Maj will fail, but it's an extreme high risk scenerio.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-21-2006, 02:09 PM
It's amazing how selective the board is. There's one thread where everyone is wetting themselves about how tremendous Hatteberg has been to this team and this one where Lopez was single-handedly taking Cincy to the cellar.

It's very easy to cherry pick what stats you want and make that player look good or bad. FeLo's on pace to up his walk total from 57 to 86 in one season. How come no one is talking about him avoiding outs, scoring runs, etc etc etc? If he was better liked then this could show his growth at the plate, becoming more patient, selective, etc. But since somehow he has become the scapegoat, no one cares.

It's just very funny.

I agree edabbs, and I think his defensive deficiencies are a tad overblown.

Especially considering he just turned 26.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 02:09 PM
It's amazing how selective the board is. There's one thread where everyone is wetting themselves about how tremendous Hatteberg has been to this team and this one where Lopez was single-handedly taking Cincy to the cellar.

Hatteberg is undervalued and Lopez is overvalued.

It's not a difficult conclusion to make.

Patrick Bateman
07-21-2006, 02:16 PM
If you trade an 834 OPS rightfielder with above average defense, and that reliever fails, you've really set the club back. I'm not saying that Maj will fail, but it's an extreme high risk scenerio.

And what if Kearns fails? It's just as risky for them. Of course they have to pay that failing player $5M next season.

SteelSD
07-21-2006, 02:18 PM
I hear a lot of noise from you about how stupid the trade was and how valuable Lopez was.

How do you rectify the the fact that Lopez was incapable of playing his position defensively, may have already had his career year, and was about to get really expensive with your contention that he somehow had ton of trade value? Because frankly I don't see it.

Oh, certainly Lopez hasn't been good defensively this season. We know this. He's at the bottom of the ZR barrel this year after finishing mid-pack in 2005. That being said, I've always been of the opinion that he could play another position if Shortstop didn't work out, particularly when he's only 26 years old. Oh, I dunno. Second Base? And it's not like the Reds are running big improvements out there at the moment.

The fact that Lopez is only 26 also bodes well for him offensively and he's still above-average in that department. If you're looking or a career year out of him, you might be best served to look forward to his age-prime seasons rather than backward. His plate discipline has improved. If Lopez is failing during his slow first half, then he's failing well. All of that stacks up well for him and he's still very gifted physically.

And I'm not sure you've noticed an inconsistency in your thought process. If Lopez isn't at all valuable- meaning he was worth what the Reds got for him- then why would a player of such low value project to become "really expensive"? Answer? He wouldn't. In fact, the only way Felipe Lopez is ready to get really expensive is if he's much better than you give him credit for.

Can't have it both ways. Either Lopez isn't any good, has little trade value, and projects a lower future paycheck that'll reflect his performance or Lopez is good, has more trade value, and projects a higher future paycheck that'll relect his performance.

That's not noise. That's logic.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 02:26 PM
Can't have it both ways. Either Lopez isn't any good, has little trade value, and projects a lower future paycheck that'll reflect his performance or Lopez is good, has more trade value, and projects a higher future paycheck that'll relect his performance.And yet the arb market is what sets his pay scale for the next 2 years while folks sit on their hands and wait to see if he's too poor a fielder to play ML SS or if he's capable of switching positions and slugging like last year.

I guess the the Reds didn't want to pay for that (roughly 10-12 million for the next 2 years until he could walk)

I can't blame em for taking that position myself.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 02:43 PM
Hatteberg is undervalued and Lopez is overvalued.

It's not a difficult conclusion to make.
Lopez is 26 and Hatteberg is 56. Obviously FeLo isn't that overvalued, since he didn't bring much in return.

SteelSD
07-21-2006, 02:55 PM
And yet the arb market is what sets his pay scale for the next 2 years while folks sit on their hands and wait to see if he's too poor a fielder to play ML SS or if he's capable of switching positions and slugging like last year.

I guess the the Reds didn't want to pay for that (roughly 10-12 million for the next 2 years until he could walk)

I can't blame em for taking that position myself.

If Lopez finishes strong and repeats his 2005 season, he's a player worth having at that cost. If he's much less valuable (as you and pedro contend), then he's not going to get a bump to those figures. Heck, Brian Roberts posted a .902 OPS last season and he asked (yes, asked) for only 3.6 mil and settled for around 3.0 mil. Lopez is being paid 2.7 and is simply not going to double that should he be the player you and pedro contend he is.

In any case, he didn't have to be moved immediately if he had to be moved. There wasn't some kind of "last chance" sign hanging around Lopez' neck. If the Reds wanted to "avoid" paying Lopez over the next two seasons, they had the rest of this year, this offseason, next season, and next offseason to move him.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 03:07 PM
Obviously FeLo isn't that overvalued, since he didn't bring much in return.

Hardly a true barometer of a player's abilities or value.

pedro
07-21-2006, 03:19 PM
And I'm not sure you've noticed an inconsistency in your thought process. If Lopez isn't at all valuable- meaning he was worth what the Reds got for him- then why would a player of such low value project to become "really expensive"? Answer? He wouldn't. In fact, the only way Felipe Lopez is ready to get really expensive is if he's much better than you give him credit for.

Can't have it both ways. Either Lopez isn't any good, has little trade value, and projects a lower future paycheck that'll reflect his performance or Lopez is good, has more trade value, and projects a higher future paycheck that'll relect his performance.

That's not noise. That's logic.

I don't agree. The arb market often focuses on crap like being an all star. He is going to get a big payday whether he is worth it or not and as I'm not convinced he'd be a very good second baseman either he looks like a light hitting third baseman to me. The Reds don't need to pay 4 million + for that.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 03:22 PM
Lopez is being paid 2.7 and is simply not going to double that should he be the player you and pedro contend he is.If he plays SS it sure could, because his arb comparisons will focus on SS, not second baseman.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 03:23 PM
Hardly a true barometer of a player's abilities or value.
More sarcasm than truth, but I still believe part of that. Overvalued how? By his salary? There are far more overvalued players on this roster than Lopez. If we wanted to go through the roster, Jr and Milton are the first to the chopping block.

CTA513
07-21-2006, 03:29 PM
:sleep:

D-Man
07-21-2006, 03:43 PM
FeLo's on pace to up his walk total from 57 to 86 in one season. How come no one is talking about him avoiding outs, scoring runs, etc etc etc?

Here are two players' 2006 road splits:

.246/.333/.372
.278/.333/.367

Which one is FeLo and which one is Royce Clayton?

How come no one is talking about this?

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 03:51 PM
Here are two players' 2006 road splits:

.246/.333/.372
.278/.333/.367

Which one is FeLo and which one is Royce Clayton?

How come no one is talking about this?
Thank you for proving my point. You can cherry pick stats and mold them into whatever your heart desires for most players. There aren't many players who hit well on the road, at home, with no one on, with RISP, with RISP/2 outs, vs LHPs, vs RHPs, etc etc etc.

KronoRed
07-21-2006, 03:51 PM
:sleep:
Now now..no sleeping through a thread.

It's impressive his walks are going up, but his EBH's are taking a nose dive, one year weirdness? maybe.

oregonred
07-21-2006, 04:06 PM
If Lopez finishes strong and repeats his 2005 season, he's a player worth having at that cost. If he's much less valuable (as you and pedro contend), then he's not going to get a bump to those figures. Heck, Brian Roberts posted a .902 OPS last season and he asked (yes, asked) for only 3.6 mil and settled for around 3.0 mil. Lopez is being paid 2.7 and is simply not going to double that should he be the player you and pedro contend he is.

In any case, he didn't have to be moved immediately if he had to be moved. There wasn't some kind of "last chance" sign hanging around Lopez' neck. If the Reds wanted to "avoid" paying Lopez over the next two seasons, they had the rest of this year, this offseason, next season, and next offseason to move him.

The same Brian Roberts that went from $390K in '05 to $3.0M this season (a mere 750% annual increase)... Felo leaps from 415K to 2.7M in 2006 behind a breakout year. While he won't get a 2X+ type bonanza next year with his middling 2006 numbers, it is safe to say with the MLB Arbitration a.k.a. MLB Peter Principle scheme he'll do no worse then end up ~$4M in 2007. Do I want to pay for a career .740 OPS SS (or even worse maybe a 2B/3B or OF masquerading as a SS in an arb hearing) with poor defensive skills 4M+ going forward? Not a chance.

C'mon man, you know how the arb game works. It's the greatest thing ever for average and slightly above average players in years 4, 5 and 6 of service time. It goes in increments with each year getting prohibitively more expensive. All you need is that one breakout year to get the salary reset to the $2.5-3M range and then it is gravy time from there -- a one way ticket skyward. Since the average starting position salary in baseball is in the ~$4-6M range all you need to do is hang around as an average asset and gather enough service time on the clock (mixing in a nice one year pop like Felo to get that huge escalation is all the better) and you quickly become death to virtually any small/mid market team.

Did Lopez need to be moved immediately -- of course not, but the fact remains that the Reds got the best performance/value years for both Kearns/Lopez as they keep getting more expensive. 4.6 years of good value from Kearns and 3.6 pretty good ones for Lopez. Whether the Reds got the right return for them at this point in time remains TBD, but the value/performance window for these two guys was diminishing at an accelerating rate. Personally I would have liked to hold out on Jimbo with Kearns for Bray/Maj right now and then 100% for sure dump Felo in the offseason, but I'm not sure his value would have been all that great then given his return to a pedestrian career OPS norm and his growing reputation as a defensive hack.

RFS62
07-21-2006, 04:49 PM
Scott Boros

registerthis
07-21-2006, 05:34 PM
:sleep:
Oh go find another thread to doze off in...

SteelSD
07-21-2006, 05:38 PM
I don't agree. The arb market often focuses on crap like being an all star. He is going to get a big payday whether he is worth it or not and as I'm not convinced he'd be a very good second baseman either he looks like a light hitting third baseman to me. The Reds don't need to pay 4 million + for that.

And the trade market doesn't focus on crap like being a former All Star? I understand you're not convinced that he'd make a transition to 2B, but you're not even considering it. Nor are you considering that Lopez is moving into his age-prime seasons. There's a good deal of probability on Lopez' side at his age, but you're omitting all of it right now.

Lopez' PECOTA projects him to be worth 5.125 mil and 5.325 mil over Replacement Player in 2007 and 2008. And Replacement Player is what the Reds are running out to his position right now with no improvment in sight. Considering our options, Lopez projects to be worth 10 million bucks more than what the Reds have over the next two seasons. Oh, sure the Reds could go find something better than that I suppose. But you have to pay resources (either players, money, or both) to do that as well.

And the point remains that the Reds didn't need to pay even as much as four million bucks to Lopez for next season. They could trade him at any point before then.


If he plays SS it sure could, because his arb comparisons will focus on SS, not second baseman.

And if it got that far (actually to an arbiter table), wouldn't his defensive shortcomings and volatile hitting (assuming he would have continued at his current pace) figure into the mix? Absolutely they would.

registerthis
07-21-2006, 05:39 PM
More sarcasm than truth, but I still believe part of that. Overvalued how? By his salary? There are far more overvalued players on this roster than Lopez.

I'm not sure that there are. Who's overvaluing Milton? No one. Who thinks Junior's contract is commensurate with his production? No one. Anyway, for this discussion I'm saying that Lopez has been overvalued in terms of this trade. I greatly dislike the deal as it was made, but I think Lopez - Bray would have been fine.

I just have no idea why Hatteberg was brought into the discussion. There's no irony in people thinking that hatteberg is being undervalued and Lopez is being overvalued--there's a very strong case to be made for each.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 05:47 PM
And if it got that far (actually to an arbiter table), wouldn't his defensive shortcomings and volatile hitting (assuming he would have continued at his current pace) figure into the mix? Absolutely they would.

Yet the reverse situation won Brian Hunter 2.4 in 2000 over the Mariners offer of 1.5.

It's voodoo in them swamps.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 05:48 PM
I just have no idea why Hatteberg was brought into the discussion.
http://www.superdairyboy.com/pictures/rocket_usa/Bozoexebopbig.jpg

SteelSD
07-21-2006, 05:49 PM
The same Brian Roberts that went from $390K in '05 to $3.0M this season (a mere 750% annual increase)... Felo leaps from 415K to 2.7M in 2006 behind a breakout year. While he won't get a 2X+ type bonanza next year with his middling 2006 numbers, it is safe to say with the MLB Arbitration a.k.a. MLB Peter Principle scheme he'll do no worse then end up ~$4M in 2007. Do I want to pay for a career .740 OPS SS (or even worse maybe a 2B/3B or OF masquerading as a SS in an arb hearing) with poor defensive skills 4M+ going forward? Not a chance.

C'mon man, you know how the arb game works. It's the greatest thing ever for average and slightly above average players in years 4, 5 and 6 of service time. It goes in increments with each year getting prohibitively more expensive. All you need is that one breakout year to get the salary reset to the $2.5-3M range and then it is gravy time from there -- a one way ticket skyward. Since the average starting position salary in baseball is in the ~$4-6M range all you need to do is hang around as an average asset and gather enough service time on the clock (mixing in a nice one year pop like Felo to get that huge escalation is all the better) and you quickly become death to virtually any small/mid market team.

Did Lopez need to be moved immediately -- of course not, but the fact remains that the Reds got the best performance/value years for both Kearns/Lopez as they keep getting more expensive. 4.6 years of good value from Kearns and 3.6 pretty good ones for Lopez. Whether the Reds got the right return for them at this point in time remains TBD, but the value/performance window for these two guys was diminishing at an accelerating rate. Personally I would have liked to hold out on Jimbo with Kearns for Bray/Maj right now and then 100% for sure dump Felo in the offseason, but I'm not sure his value would have been all that great then given his return to a pedestrian career OPS norm and his growing reputation as a defensive hack.

The Reds got the best performance/value years for both Kearns and Lopez because the system is set up to provide the best value in pre-arbitration years. Dollar-for-dollar, solid performers are dramatically underpaid versus their peers before they're arbitration eligible. That's how the game works but because we see big salary escalations during the first-arbitration eligible years, we misinterpret that it's the best time to punt a player for a value return. That's a slippery slope considering that during the first couple of arbitration years players are simply progressing to the norm in terms of cost efficiency.

It's hard for us to stomach seeing a player rise from near-league minimum as they approach what they're actually worth. But if they're going to be overpaid prior to their FA eligibility years, it's going to be after their first two arbitration-eligible seasons. That offers plenty of time to make decisions on whether or not the players you're talking about are keepers.

oregonred
07-21-2006, 07:33 PM
Steel -- I think we are both saying the same thing on the arb scale and we both know all the details on how it works (or doesn't work) but IMO Lopez is about to cross the line into being overpaid starting April 1, 2007.

Basically in year 4 of service time both are still underpaid (2006, for sure with Kearns, more questionable for Lopez based on his '06 and .740 career OPS across 2000 ABs). In year 5 -- 2007 they will in theory both get paid closer to what they should in the market (~$4M for both, but I'd prefer to pass on paying that to Lopez given his liabilities). In 2008 both of them will likely be at least slightly overpaid relative to their worth (league position average or better with the club benefit of no LTC risk). FA gets them a LTC and some lucky club gets to take on the risk.

Our difference: I think that Lopez is now roughly at the "paid to market" level and he will soon be "overpaid to market" starting next season. His trade value in the marketplace should reflect that reality -- it's a lot less than it was before 2006 started due to his mediocre '06 performance, negative defensive reputation, position projection uncertainty and his looming escalating salary under the arb system. Your opinion is that he is presently and will remain "underpaid to market" into 2008.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 07:35 PM
I just have no idea why Hatteberg was brought into the discussion. There's no irony in people thinking that hatteberg is being undervalued and Lopez is being overvalued--there's a very strong case to be made for each.
My point was that some people are falling all over themselves about how great Hatteberg has been. They talk about value in relation to his salary. They talk about OBP. They say he is better than Casey ever was. They say he should be re-signed. I'm not bashing Hatte, I am just stating the obviously growing fanbase he has on this board.

But my point was that if you look at Lopez's stats, they weren't that bad. He is on pace to demolish his career high in walks. On pace for 40 steals. On pace for almost 100 runs. So he has the yips in the field. Dunn isn't a star out there. Neither is Griffey. EE hardly reminds anyone of Brooks Robinson.

Lopez gets traded and everyone is tearing him apart, saying he hit his peak and now it's all downhill and whatever. The guy is 26. BP is going to have to be moved to SS next year...maybe they could have tried Lopez at 2b. I think he would provide more value than Maj.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 07:39 PM
So he has the yips in the field. Dunn isn't a star out there. Neither is Griffey. EE hardly reminds anyone of Brooks Robinson.
Yet hundreds of folks have pointed out Griffey and Lopez's defense over the past year and you know why?

Because those are your two key defensive positions, as for LF... least of most baseball fans worries, plus the last time I looked Dunn had hitting stats that didn't make being a defensive black hole in the position where most teams hide there defensive black holes such an issue.

You'd be hard pressed to find a winning team with crappy defense up the middle then a team that had a poor LF or 3rd baseman.

oregonred
07-21-2006, 07:40 PM
Lopez' PECOTA projects him to be worth 5.125 mil and 5.325 mil over Replacement Player in 2007 and 2008. And Replacement Player is what the Reds are running out to his position right now with no improvment in sight. Considering our options, Lopez projects to be worth 10 million bucks more than what the Reds have over the next two seasons. Oh, sure the Reds could go find something better than that I suppose. But you have to pay resources (either players, money, or both) to do that as well.

.

Maybe I'm missing something here... If Lopez makes $4M in 2007 and is still projected to be underpaid by $5.125M in '07 that means he would project to make $9.125M in the open market??

I'd take my chances that I could find replacement value (a .740 OPS and average at best/below average defensive skills) at the $4M level. With almost certainty I'd find superior production to his projected contribution at the $9.125M level.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 07:53 PM
Yet hundreds of folks have pointed out Griffey and Lopez's defense over the past year and you know why?

Because those are your two key defensive positions, as for LF... least of most baseball fans worries, plus the last time I looked Dunn had hitting stats that didn't make being a defensive black hole in the position where most teams hide there defensive black holes such an issue.

You'd be hard pressed to find a winning team with crappy defense up the middle then a team that had a poor LF or 3rd baseman.
I'm looking at next year and beyond. Personally, unless they go out and get Zito, Willis and Mariano, I don't think they'll be playing deep into October. So if BP is going to be playing SS next year anyway, why not see if Lopez can do something at 2nd?

I'm not trying to make this into a Lopez rally b/c I am more upset that AK was included. But I find it funny that he is being skewered on this board and people are making it seem like Maj+Bray-Lopez=1990.

And don't let Damage Control sway your opinions b/c I know you're better than that....Clayton is nothing to brag about in the field.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 08:23 PM
So if BP is going to be playing SS next year anyway, why not see if Lopez can do something at 2nd?Mostly because they don't want to interrupt Brandon's progress is what I gather from Narron's quotes.

And don't let Damage Control sway your opinions b/c I know you're better than that....Clayton is nothing to brag about in the field.

Nobody's swaying my opinion, I think that the Reds want to increase their baseball acumen in the infield, hence Clayton, why else all the quotes about his head and not his glove? Mostly because the Reds (and many fans) had lost faith in Lopez during into the next Larkin or even Leo Cardenes.

You can't chart knowing what to do in the infield looks like, but evidently being the meat in the infield rookie sandwich didn't work out in to well for Lopez.

edabbs44
07-21-2006, 09:17 PM
Nobody's swaying my opinion, I think that the Reds want to increase their baseball acumen in the infield, hence Clayton, why else all the quotes about his head and not his glove?

From the Cincinnati Enquirer: Lopez is hitting .268 with nine homers and 30 RBIs, but has occasionally failed to make the routine play. The Reds are second-to-last in the NL in fielding.

"In order to win, we've got to make the routine play every time," manager Jerry Narron said.

From the Cincinnati Post: At the same time, the Reds upgraded their defense.

Lopez, an All-Star last year, was fine offensively, hitting .268 with nine home runs and a team-high 23 stolen bases, but his defense was a drawback. Already this season, he had committed 14 errors, one behind team leader Edwin Encarnacion, and Krivsky and Narron felt the deficiency needed to be addressed.

"Felipe has a chance to be a good major league shortstop," Narron said. "It's going to be up to him - how much he wants to put into it. You have got to play well defensively, and you've got to play well consistently."

It's what Clayton, who has a career fielding percentage of .974 and ranks seventh all time among shortstops, has done during his career.

From the DDN: "At shortstop, with Royce Clayton and Juan Castro, we are going to get a lot of defense," Narron added.

westofyou
07-21-2006, 09:24 PM
From the Cincinnati Enquirer: Lopez is hitting .268 with nine homers and 30 RBIs, but has occasionally failed to make the routine play. The Reds are second-to-last in the NL in fielding.

"In order to win, we've got to make the routine play every time," manager Jerry Narron said.

From the Cincinnati Post: At the same time, the Reds upgraded their defense.

Lopez, an All-Star last year, was fine offensively, hitting .268 with nine home runs and a team-high 23 stolen bases, but his defense was a drawback. Already this season, he had committed 14 errors, one behind team leader Edwin Encarnacion, and Krivsky and Narron felt the deficiency needed to be addressed.

"Felipe has a chance to be a good major league shortstop," Narron said. "It's going to be up to him - how much he wants to put into it. You have got to play well defensively, and you've got to play well consistently."

It's what Clayton, who has a career fielding percentage of .974 and ranks seventh all time among shortstops, has done during his career.

From the DDN: "At shortstop, with Royce Clayton and Juan Castro, we are going to get a lot of defense," Narron added.

I don't read those papers, what does that have to do with my opinion?

Looks to me like they don;t really care for Lopez's glove and this is why I came to that conclusion.

Felipe has a .954 fielding percentage this year (.970 last year), if you were to look at the 100 worst SS seasons by NL teams since Roy McMillan became a Red you will find 3 Reds seasons in the botoom 100, 1968 (96th place, 1987 31st and 2003 20th) If you go and look at the next 100 shortstop seasons you'll find 1970 at #132, 1986 at #167 and 1964 at #173.

Each year except for 1964 was followed by either more of the same (87-87) or a new shortstop.

Looks like they were afraid of it happening again so they cut to the chase.

Good teams don't suffer bad fielding shortstops, looks to me like the Reds want to stay the course on their history.

I for one agree on that, and I don't need to be "swayed" either.


Five worst Reds seasons at SS since 1950

1964

FIELDING PERCENTAGE PCT G
1 Leo Cardenas .960 163

1968

FIELDING PERCENTAGE PCT G
1 Leo Cardenas .955 136
2 Woody Woodward .968 41


1970
SS

FIELDING PERCENTAGE PCT G
1 Darrel Chaney .941 30
2 Dave Concepcion .945 93
3 Woody Woodward .973 77
4 Tommy Helms 1.000 12

1986

FIELDING PERCENTAGE PCT G
1 Wade Rowdon .893 6
2 Kurt Stillwell .951 80
3 Dave Concepcion .965 60
4 Barry Larkin .976 36

1987

FIELDING PERCENTAGE PCT G
1 Kurt Stillwell .914 51
2 Barry Larkin .965 119

2003

FIELDING PERCENTAGE PCT G
1 Felipe Lopez .928 50
2 Rainer Olmedo .928 51
3 Barry Larkin .962 60
4 Juan Castro 1.000 24

SteelSD
07-22-2006, 01:19 AM
Maybe I'm missing something here... If Lopez makes $4M in 2007 and is still projected to be underpaid by $5.125M in '07 that means he would project to make $9.125M in the open market??

I'd take my chances that I could find replacement value (a .740 OPS and average at best/below average defensive skills) at the $4M level. With almost certainty I'd find superior production to his projected contribution at the $9.125M level.

No. It means that Lopez projects to be worth $5.125M versus Replacement Player- not league average. The irony is that "Replacement Player" pretty much epitomizes the value of Juan Castro or Royce Clayton over a full season. Your average Shortstop is worth more than four million bucks. The Reds are paying the equivalent of two million bucks to replacement-level Shortstops. Do the math.

There aren't any internal options. Unless the Reds overpay for defense or dedicate significant personnel resources to acquire them, you're likely not going to see a change there. Above average offense from a player who's heading into his age-prime seasons is geometrically more valuable than the options the Reds have at the moment.

And we need to realize that Krivsky won't just overpay for defense, but he'll overpay for the perception of defense. You think a guy like Cesar Izturis-type is going to be cheap (dramatically overpaid for his perceived defensive value)? And if you can find a Free Agent or trade option who'll put up Lopez' probable numbers next season and can get him without four million in player and cash value, I'd love to see him because, at this point, that player doesn't appear to exist. And yes, the perception of defense is why Juan Castro is being paid a million bucks this season regardless of the reality.

The reality is that Shortstops get overpaid for their defensive value quite consistently regardless of whether or not that perception equates reality. The reason that happens is that the perception (key word there) of defensive value is dramatically overvalued at that position. The next reality is that Felipe Lopez isn't very good defensively right now which should bode well for any team going to arbitration with Felipe Lopez. Yet we continue to hear about how much money a player who apparently isn't any good is going to get in arbitration. And as bad the Reds options are, Felipe Lopez is probably worth more to the Reds than 5 million bucks in the near future considering that the Reds have no internal options and the external options equal a big dollar and/or talent investment.

But that whole analysis could have been rendered moot had the Reds simply received equitable value for Felipe Lopez. They didn't, and that's not a cost savings any way we want to slice it.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-22-2006, 01:26 AM
No. It means that Lopez projects to be worth $5.125M versus Replacement Player- not league average. The irony is that "Replacement Player" pretty much epitomizes the value of Juan Castro or Royce Clayton over a full season. Your average Shortstop is worth more than four million bucks. The Reds are paying the equivalent of two million bucks to replacement-level Shortstops. Do the math.

There aren't any internal options. Unless the Reds overpay for defense or dedicate significant personnel resources to acquire them, you're likely not going to see a change there. Above average offense from a player who's heading into his age-prime seasons is geometrically more valuable than the options the Reds have at the moment.

And we need to realize that Krivsky won't just overpay for defense, but he'll overpay for the perception of defense. You think a guy like Cesar Izturis-type is going to be cheap (dramatically overpaid for his perceived defensive value)? And if you can find a Free Agent or trade option who'll put up Lopez' probable numbers next season and can get him without four million in player and cash value, I'd love to see him because, at this point, that player doesn't appear to exist. And yes, the perception of defense is why Juan Castro is being paid a million bucks this season regardless of the reality.

The reality is that Shortstops get overpaid for their defensive value quite consistently regardless of whether or not that perception equates reality. The reason that happens is that the perception (key word there) of defensive value is dramatically overvalued at that position. The next reality is that Felipe Lopez isn't very good defensively right now which should bode well for any team going to arbitration with Felipe Lopez. Yet we continue to hear about how much money a player who apparently isn't any good is going to get in arbitration. And as bad the Reds options are, Felipe Lopez is probably worth more the the Reds than 5 million bucks in the near future considering that the Reds have no internal options and the external options equal a big dollar and/or talent investment.

But that whole analysis could have been rendered moot had the Reds simply received equitable value for Felipe Lopez. They didn't, and that's not a cost savings any way we want to slice it.

Very well said.