PDA

View Full Version : RE: "The Trade" (What would you have done?)



SultanOfSwing
09-13-2006, 01:14 PM
OK, until this point I have refrained from participating in discussion about "The Trade." Yet, everyone else seems to have a firm and solid opinion on it, especially the detractors. So I request:

Who would you have traded Kearns and Lopez for? Individually or collectively.

I want realistic and specific answers and you can't choose to keep them. Please, no answers like:

"Anthing else."
Johan Santana...

Or anything sarcastic.

So what options do you think Krivsky had that would have pleased you? What would you have done?

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
09-13-2006, 01:21 PM
Kearns, Lopez, Wagner to Cleveland for Westbrook, Blake, Wickman.

Red Leader
09-13-2006, 01:37 PM
Personally, I would have dealt them seperately.

I would have tried to acquire bullpen help for Austin Kearns, and I would have been looking for another bullpen arm and a big time prospect for Lopez and Wagner.

I have no idea if there would have been any interest in either of those deals, but that's what I would have started out looking for.

I guess a side problem to that, is that I HAD to get a major league SS in return in one of those trades. That probably takes away my ability to get the big time prospect.

So, after realizing all of that. I would have tried to trade Austin Kearns for a major league SS and a mediocre bullpen arm, and then tried to deal Lopez and Wagner for a bullpen arm and a big time prospect.

pedro
09-13-2006, 01:47 PM
Personally, I would have dealt them seperately.

I would have tried to acquire bullpen help for Austin Kearns, and I would have been looking for another bullpen arm and a big time prospect for Lopez and Wagner.

I have no idea if there would have been any interest in either of those deals, but that's what I would have started out looking for.

I guess a side problem to that, is that I HAD to get a major league SS in return in one of those trades. That probably takes away my ability to get the big time prospect.

So, after realizing all of that. I would have tried to trade Austin Kearns for a major league SS and a mediocre bullpen arm, and then tried to deal Lopez and Wagner for a bullpen arm and a big time prospect.

I understand what you are saying RL, but those guys just weren't worth that IMO. That doesn't mean they couldn't have gotten better return, just that Kearns was never going to bring a SS and an arm and Lopez, until he had proved he could play defense somewhere where his bat would be a plus, wasn't going to get much either. To me, the biggest mistake the Reds made was not switching Phillips and Lopez and seeing if Lopez could have been adequate at 2B. That, IMO, would have made him much more valauble if the Reds wanted to trade him in the off season. BTW, Lopez has 26 errors now at SS and with range as poor as he has, he has no business playing SS and I think a lot of people tend to sweep that under the rug when evaluating the trade.

Natty Redlocks
09-13-2006, 01:57 PM
My superior baseball intellect tells me that Krivsky was offered a #1 starter and a top closer from every other team he talked to. Why, why, why, didn't he consult the internet messageboards before making the deal? The chances are excellent that he would've been advised to take one of those offers instead of the Nats deal. We can only hope he learns from this experience where to go when the tough choices need to be made.

SultanOfSwing
09-13-2006, 02:00 PM
My superior baseball intellect tells me that Krivsky was offered a #1 starter and a top closer from every other team he talked to. Why, why, why, didn't he consult the internet messageboards before making the deal? The chances are excellent that he would've been advised to take one of those offers instead of the Nats deal. We can only hope he learns from this experience where to go when the tough choices need to be made.

:laugh: :clap:

Red Leader
09-13-2006, 02:02 PM
I understand what you are saying RL, but those guys just weren't worth that IMO. That doesn't mean they couldn't have gotten better return, just that Kearns was never going to bring a SS and an arm and Lopez, until he had proved he could play defense somewhere where his bat would be a plus, wasn't going to get much either. To me, the biggest mistake the Reds made was not switching Phillips and Lopez and seeing if Lopez could have been adequate at 2B. That, IMO, would have made him much more valauble if the Reds wanted to trade him in the off season. BTW, Lopez has 26 errors now at SS and with range as poor as he has, he has no business playing SS and I think a lot of people tend to sweep that under the rug when evaluating the trade.


I agree with you. They weren't worth what I would have been looking for. I like your idea of trying Lopez at 2B, but in reality, Krivsky decided he wanted both Kearns and Lopez off of this team (and Wagner, too). So, all three HAD to be traded in this scenario. You can't post that you would have kept any of those three players, because that was never considered (IMO) by Wayne. To be honest, I don't know what any of them would have been able to fetch in return. I don't think any of them individually would have brought in a top prospect. I think maybe Kearns and Wagner might have been enough to bring in Ryan Shealy from the Rockies, but who knows? Maybe the Rockies had no interest in Kearns. They've got corner OFers in Hawpe and Holliday. If that deal were to go down, then maybe then you could look at trading Lopez and Hatteberg somewhere else. Maybe that sets off a chain reaction. Maybe BAL trades Tejada to HOU if you give them Lopez and Hatteberg. The possible scenarios are endless. In the end, I have no idea if the Reds will be better / worse than what they are now. It's impossible to know. There are so many variables here, you'll never be able to convince me that the Reds would be in a better playoff situation if they would have done something else. What if the SD deal to send Linebrink to the Mets had officially gone down, would the Padres be where they are at now? I don't know.

oneupper
09-13-2006, 02:04 PM
Here's something realistic: Same deal but NO CLAYTON.

Not saying I like it...but I think it was better than the original.

OldXOhio
09-13-2006, 02:20 PM
Considering Jimbo's love for his former Reds acquisitions, Kearns or Lopez straight up for Bray shouldn't have been an unrealistic goal. Who knows if the talks ever even got there, but as has been mentioned, Krivsky appeared to place as much value in elminating AK & FL from the organization altogether as he had in getting an equitable return on them in a trade.

TRF
09-13-2006, 04:15 PM
I was ok with the destination.

But any deal with Washington for those two should have included Jon Rauch.

ED44
09-13-2006, 04:42 PM
I was ok with the destination.

But any deal with Washington for those two should have included Jon Rauch.

I agree with you 100% on that one. Rauch should have been a Red.

I also like what the Mets got for Nady....hernandez and Oliver Perez. Although Perez has struggled he would have been worth a slight risk. I think most would have been more happy with Lopez or Kearns for those two. Then use the other as bait for more bullpen help.

REDREAD
09-13-2006, 04:56 PM
For Kearns, you try to get a solid #3 starter like we did with Arroyo for Pena. Westbrook works, or someone else. Or you get a legitimate closer for Kearns. If none is available, you wait until the offseason to trade Kearns.

I probably wouldn't have traded Lopez unless bowled over. I know the guy has his flaws with the glove, but before trading him, I'd want to secure a MI to replace him. If I traded Kearns, I'm not sure I'd want to weaken the offense by trading Lopez. Maybe I move Lopez to 2nd and Phillips to SS in the offseason. I know Lopez has a few games at 2b, but I haven't seen him there, so I don't know if his defense is better there.

To get bullpen help, I would've just gotten older vets like Wickman, Schowesis, Guaradado, etc. The Reds were willing to take on salary, so they should've exploited that. If there was a young reliever that was a long time solution availabe, I'd gladly offer Freel or Deno for them. To give up Kearns, I'd need two SOLID, HEALTHY mid relievers. Neither Bray nor Maj fall into that catagory. There's no point in paying a premium for relief pitching during the season unless it's a true impact guy.

If I traded Kearns, I would've tried to pick up an OF bat like Jenkins or someone like that and hope that they got rejuvinated. Someone with a cheap trade cost that only cost 1-2 milion for the rest of the year and wasn't a millstone the next year. (Maybe Jenkins is signed for next year). I was never sold on Freel or Deno being a full time player.

swingman24
09-13-2006, 05:01 PM
Kearns, Lopez, and Wagner to Cleveland for Sabathia, Carmona, and Peralta

REDREAD
09-13-2006, 05:04 PM
Considering Jimbo's love for his former Reds acquisitions, Kearns or Lopez straight up for Bray shouldn't have been an unrealistic goal. .

Actually, Wash would've probably done that. They said the initial deal was Maj for Kearns straight up.

So at worse, we give up Wagner and Lopez for Bray and the other Wash minor leaguers. If we didn't want Harris and Thompson, we probably could've gotten Bray for Lopez. Still overpaying IMO. Ironically, since Wagner has outperformed Maj since the trade, we might've been better off in the bullpen by keeping Wagner and Kearns. The scary thing is that Maj has been so bad in Cincy that his full year stats are not a whole lot better than Wagner's. Maj's full year WHIP is 1.50, Wagner's is 1.72.. Pretty amazing, considering that Maj had pretty good numbers before he arrived. I realize small sample with Wagner as well.

RedsFanInMD
09-13-2006, 06:50 PM
I think the underlying falacy with the whole trade to begin with was the single-mindedness of obtaining bullpen help -- as if the team didn't have glaring weaknesses in other areas.

The inept offense has been every-bit as much of a reason for the number of losses as has shoddy late inning pitching. I don't know how much being without Kearns and Lopez affects that... What's always mystified me about the trade is that if there was one GM in the league who may have had an inflated view of Kearns and Lopez, it had to have been Bowden, who originally acquired both of them for the Reds. Assuming that Kearns and Lopez were on the outs both here and around the league, I still think it would have been nice if WK had picked up some kind of bat as part of that trade. No not Soriano, but at least something better than Clayton. You know, a "professional" hitter that can at least make contact with a runner at 3rd with fewer than 2 outs.

Truthfully, even at that time, WK knew that he was dealing with a starting rotation that only had 2 (3 if you count Milton) reliable arms. I still can't help but thinking that Kearns and Lopez may have netted us a Greg Maddox or a David Wells type of proven starter. Renta-players to be sure, but by making the panic move to trade players like Kearns and Lopez in the fashion that WK did for fair-to-middling relievers, a washed up middle infielder, and a couple of minor leaguors, this was supposed to prove to the fan base that ownership was interested in winning NOW, right?

In the final analysis, I think WK's biggest mistake was timing. He was looking to buy at a time where there was a seller's market for relievers. He pretty much acknowledged that he knew he was overpaying. Maybe the high price would have been more palpable if Maj hadn't been damaged goods. And just because Bray and Maj are still under contract next year, whereas a renta-player won't be, doesn't necessarily make me jump for joy either.

pedro
09-13-2006, 08:21 PM
Kearns, Lopez, and Wagner to Cleveland for Sabathia, Carmona, and Peralta


good luck with that pipe dream.

Falls City Beer
09-13-2006, 08:23 PM
I was ok with the destination.

But any deal with Washington for those two should have included Jon Rauch.

And a great offensive minor leaguer. At some point, you've got to recoup the lost offense, too.

Dracodave
09-13-2006, 08:24 PM
At the begining of the year, Kearns straight up for Westbrooke. Giving us the line up of Harrang Arroyo Westbrooke Milton Easy E/Clasueen/Whoever.

Lopez, is the one that I would have a struggle trading. I could use his all-star appearence as leverage but what would it do? I could see getting maybe....yeah I dunno..
I would have tried for a combo of a relief pitcher (flame thrower) and young outfield cause I really dont see Deno doing much..

ol'Sparky
09-13-2006, 09:51 PM
greg maddux coulda helped the reds, and they coulda got him for next to nothin' ............. bill bray is the only player from this deal who will ever wear a reds uniform again.

he gave lopez and kearns away .......... we shoulda traded dunn and kept kerns !!

dunn and lopez ........... we could have had santana or dontrelle

Patrick Bateman
09-13-2006, 10:53 PM
greg maddux coulda helped the reds, and they coulda got him for next to nothin' ............. bill bray is the only player from this deal who will ever wear a reds uniform again.

he gave lopez and kearns away .......... we shoulda traded dunn and kept kerns !!

dunn and lopez ........... we could have had santana or dontrelle

The thought process that went into the trade was not horrible. The bullpen we had was not going to help us win, we controlled the rights to Majeswki and Bray for 4 and 6 more years respectivley, and Lopez and Kearns were going to become very expensive in arbitration, and not worth the money they would have made. However, we still should have gotten more.

Adam Dunn and Lopez would never have landed us Dontrelle Willis this year. The Marlins had a fire sale last offseason to bring their payroll down to the 15 milion dollar range, and would not have any interest in the large contract that Adam Dunn posesses, and what Lopez would recieve in arbitration, not to mention that the middle of their infield is solidified cheaply for years in Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla. That trade would have never happened.

dman
09-13-2006, 11:19 PM
greg maddux coulda helped the reds, and they coulda got him for next to nothin'


As much of a Maddux fan as I am, I don't think there is a whole lot he could've done for us. The fact that he doesn't have the stuff that he used to along with our offense shutting down the way it has would've left us in the same boat we're in now. Plus Maddux being with the Dodgers gives him a legit shot at getting one more World Series ring before he retires.

PuffyPig
09-14-2006, 06:34 PM
The thought process that went into the trade was not horrible. The bullpen we had was not going to help us win, we controlled the rights to Majeswki and Bray for 4 and 6 more years respectivley, and Lopez and Kearns were going to become very expensive in arbitration, and not worth the money they would have made. However, we still should have gotten more.

Adam Dunn and Lopez would never have landed us Dontrelle Willis this year. The Marlins had a fire sale last offseason to bring their payroll down to the 15 milion dollar range, and would not have any interest in the large contract that Adam Dunn posesses, and what Lopez would recieve in arbitration, not to mention that the middle of their infield is solidified cheaply for years in Hanley Ramirez and Dan Uggla. That trade would have never happened.

:thumbup:

This maybe the best first post I've ever seen.

Let's hear more from you.

Rational, well thought out......on second thought, maybe there's no place here for the likes of you.:laugh:

redsupport
09-14-2006, 07:02 PM
when I heard that the trade was with Washington I thought that the site was fine but getting ripped off by Bowden who wouls have instrinsically overpaid for those two, was disastrous I mean what the heck is Royce Clayton, he is an out machine

WMR
09-14-2006, 07:09 PM
The answer is simple.

Krivsky should have sat on his hands and waited until the off-season when the return for Felipe and Kearns could have been maximized. You rarely receive full value for players when traded mid-season.

Furthermore, I'd have kept Felipe and flip-flopped him with B. Phillips in spring training next season.

oh yeah: and I would have conducted due diligence and not traded for, as one of the trade's supposed 'key cogs', a pitcher who could not pitch.

nkufan
09-14-2006, 07:34 PM
Since the trade rich aurilla has out played lopez in every phase of the game excpect stolen bases. did the trade help us prolly not but kriv gave it a shot. The reds fell out if because those they didnt have the horses to hang in the race. Thats Linder O'brien, and company's for being cheap and stupid in spending what money they had. I believe in Rcast, Kriv, and even Narron!:beerme:

WVRedsFan
09-14-2006, 09:48 PM
First of all, you never trade that much offense unless you get a dynamite starter. No way you give the other team those two for two middling relievers (one a rookie) and a washed up shortstop. I have no idea what Krivsky was thinking. Surely, on that day, he was abducted by aliens and was in the saucer while his replacement made this deal. Pitching and defense is great and what you win championships with, but you also have to have some offense.

I wouldn't have traded either of those two. They were both young and learning. We've all heard about attitude problems from both of them, but given the right manager, this would have worked itself out. You didn't have to trade them. Krivsky acquired pitchers that made a difference elsewhere. EDEddie, Loshe, Kim, etc didn't require giving up a potential 45 HR and 150 RBI's with no one to replace them. Krivsky's answer to that was Deno was ready to take over right (oops) and then Freel (well, he rarely drives in or scores a run these days), our main sub everywhere. At shortstop, his answer was Clayton and now Aurilia. If you wanted to gain defense, these two are not the ticket. And the minors don't seem to have anyone waiting in the wings either.

I would have not panicked (as I believe Wayne did) to get bullpen help, never thinking that the lineup the Reds had assembled would be devastated. It worries me that he could not see that Deno, Clayton and Freel would not make up over a hundred runs driven in.

Many will say I'm short-sighted and don't understand baseball, but even if your pitching staff has a 1.50 ERA, you have to score 2 runs to win. Ours doesn't and we lose. Since the AS break, the Reds have averaged 4.25 runs a game. The opposition has averaged 4.79, meaning we had to score 5 to win. Lately, scoring five runs is an occasional thing and that's why we are losing.

gilpdawg
09-14-2006, 11:13 PM
Considering Jimbo's love for his former Reds acquisitions, Kearns or Lopez straight up for Bray shouldn't have been an unrealistic goal. Who knows if the talks ever even got there, but as has been mentioned, Krivsky appeared to place as much value in elminating AK & FL from the organization altogether as he had in getting an equitable return on them in a trade.

Exactly! I think Wayne is thinking that in the long run, it's addition by subtraction, and if the return isn't value, it doesn't matter in the long run. IMO, the jury's still out, but I've been thinking that's what Wayne was thinking. Time will tell.

machineguy
09-14-2006, 11:57 PM
Greg Maddux would have been a great addition to the club and was probably the difference with them staying home in October.

WMR
09-15-2006, 12:22 AM
Wayne obviously wasn't thinking. There's no reason on this Earth to trade two everyday players for a young kid who might amount to a good pitcher and another guy who is hurt. C'mon.

The emperor has no clothes.

dman
09-15-2006, 01:01 AM
Greg Maddux would have been a great addition to the club and was probably the difference with them staying home in October.

Maddux gets by on outsmarting the hitters, he never was one for compiling K's from shear heat. Believe me brother, you're preaching to the choir when it came to me wanting to see Maddux in a Reds uniform. Somewhere around the trade deadline there was a thread where I was making counterpoints and points as to why we should go after him.

When he was in ATL, he had a consistent offense that would score runs for him, had he came to Cincinnati, it couldn't have been worse timing the way our offense has been hit or miss since the trade deadline.
They say hindsight is 20/20, and looking back it appears that all of the people that opposed me wanting the Reds to go after Maddux were right.

Also, not downgrading the Reds with this comment, but Maddux is in the twilight of his career. To me, he is to pitchers what Cal Ripken Jr. was to position players, and I feel that Maddux truly does have a more legit shot at getting one more World Series ring with the Dodgers than what he would have had as a Red.

buckeyenut
09-16-2006, 10:16 AM
I would have probably tried to trade Kearns to Washington for Bray and Harris. Then I would have sent Lopez, Wood, Cueto, and Pelland or something like that to BAL for Tejada.