PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetical: 2006 trades



vaticanplum
11-06-2006, 05:34 PM
We all know that the Kearns/Lopez trade caused the Reds a huge offensive hit in the second half of the season. But I was thinking today about the fact that there is one offensive loss that we haven't explored much: Wily Mo Pena.

The reason for this, of course, is that the Reds got far and above what would be considered a "good return" for Pena. At that time we needed pitching far more than offense (still do, in my opinion, though the disparity has lessened). I thought that was a good trade from the start and at this point I think anyone would be hard-pressed to disagree.

But out of curiosity's sake, I wonder what kind of difference Pena would have made during the team's offensive slump. It's moot, not only because, you know, it didn't happen, but because it's impossible to know what would have happened to the pitching staff and any related trades made had Arroyo not been around. But as a sheer hypothetical, and because I didn't really keep up with Boston and Wily Mo's performance after the Red Sox started to fall out of contention, what do you guys think? Can we cull together some kind of stats to figure out how he may have helped this team offensively? This is all assuming that the Washington trade still went down too, though it's arguable whether that would have happened in that way without the Arroyo/Pena trade.

This is the definition of a Monday afternoon off-season thread.

11BarryLarkin11
11-06-2006, 05:41 PM
I'd be curious to know what kind of production Krivsky was expecting to get out of Bronson when he made the deal.

I think Bronson's Koufaxian performance was unforeseeable, but I'd love to know what Krivsky was expecting when he pulled the trigger. If Bronson performed at a lower level, then that deal wouldn't look that good either.

On the WMP trade, was Krivsky lucky? Or good? Could he have realistically anticipated that kind of performance out of Arroyo?

Falls City Beer
11-06-2006, 05:43 PM
On the WMP trade, was Krivsky lucky? Or good? Could he have realistically anticipated that kind of performance out of Arroyo?

Several people on this board saw Bronson's season coming, including M2 and yours truly. :)

vaticanplum
11-06-2006, 05:46 PM
I don't think Krivsky got lucky on that trade; I do think he was smart. Arroyo may have had a slightly better year than expected, but a year ago, a lot of people who were really familiar with his stuff believed that his subpar 2005 was an aberration, not his potential norm.

11BarryLarkin11
11-06-2006, 05:50 PM
Interesting.

You had to love the deal for the below market salary and cost certainty that Arroyo brought to the table, but I was admittedly a bit concerned about his declining K/9 rate and his overall career production. I was expecting a bump from leaving the AL East and the DH behind, but nothing on the level that he provided.

Sorry to piggyback on your thread, but I don't have any idea how to address your initial question. But, it is an interesting hypothetical. :)

harangatang
11-06-2006, 06:22 PM
Several people on this board saw Bronson's season coming, including M2 and yours truly. :)Are you suggesting that Krivsky may be one of those "strike-out loving stats guy", that you and M2 are both really smart, or a combination of both?;)

Chip R
11-06-2006, 07:02 PM
But out of curiosity's sake, I wonder what kind of difference Pena would have made during the team's offensive slump. It's moot, not only because, you know, it didn't happen, but because it's impossible to know what would have happened to the pitching staff and any related trades made had Arroyo not been around. But as a sheer hypothetical, and because I didn't really keep up with Boston and Wily Mo's performance after the Red Sox started to fall out of contention, what do you guys think? Can we cull together some kind of stats to figure out how he may have helped this team offensively? This is all assuming that the Washington trade still went down too, though it's arguable whether that would have happened in that way without the Arroyo/Pena trade.

This is the definition of a Monday afternoon off-season thread.


To get back to the original question, one thing we should remember about WMP is that he was as fragile as Kearns was. Who's to say he would have even been healthy during the big slump? But let's say he was and the Reds were right there where they were even without Arroyo. He would have taken Jr.'s place in CF and possibly provided Dunn with some protection. He might have been able to carry the offense and some of the other regulars who slumped might have picked up their game somewhat. But the problem with WMP was and is that he too doesn't make a lot of contact. As we know, that in itself is not a big deal if you are getting on base. But he has never been able to get on base at a decent clip and if you put him in a lineup where there aren't a lot of contact hitters, you're going to have problems even if he was on one of his hot streaks.

We also need to remember that while he hits well against left handers, he's not so good against righties. I haven't looked at all the pitchers we faced over the last month of the season but common sense tells me most of them were right handed.

I can't put any stats together for a hypothetical question like this. But this offensive slump seemed to be contagious. Even Aurilia didn't hit well on the infamous west coast trip. WMP may have been able to escape the "infection" and then again he may not have.

Wheelhouse
11-06-2006, 09:40 PM
We all know that the Kearns/Lopez trade caused the Reds a huge offensive hit in the second half of the season

I'm not so sure I agree--2nd half stats:

Kearns .250 8hr 36 rbi
Lopez .281 2hr 22 rbi (+ 60Ks!)

Aurilia .332 12hr 36 rbi
Freel .238 3hr 12 rbi

Somewhat less production, but I don't see a "huge offensive hit" here-- looking at those players together with the two that replaced them. People seem to blame the trade on the Reds poor offense in the second half. The fact is the Reds two marquee offensive players, Griffey and Dunn, performed wildly below career norms in the second half. If you want to look at two players in the collapse, which you seem to want to do, those are the ones. They are paid strictly to put up the big offensive numbers they are capable of, and they just didn't. Ironically, I think the trade made the pitching take a huge hit after the break: Majewski single-handedly butchered at least 4 games I can remember with some truly horrific outings. Even the Reds dogs before Maj can't measure up to the awful pitching he did in the 2nd half, with Narron trotting him out there daily with a 12+ era simply because we traded for him. Ouch.

SteelSD
11-06-2006, 09:49 PM
I'm not so sure I agree--2nd half stats:

Kearns .250 8hr 36 rbi
Lopez .281 2hr 22 rbi (+ 60Ks!)

Aurilia .332 12hr 36 rbi
Freel .238 3hr 12 rbi

Somewhat less production, but I don't see a "huge offensive hit" here-- looking at those players together with the two that replaced them.

The trade, at minimum, cost the Reds 30 Runs without even factoring in the negative contribution of Majewski while knowing that Washington is a hitter's worst nightmare. That's an almost unconsionable offensive hit to take from a single trade.

harangatang
11-06-2006, 09:50 PM
I'm not so sure I agree--2nd half stats:

Kearns .250 8hr 36 rbi
Lopez .281 2hr 22 rbi (+ 60Ks!)

Aurilia .332 12hr 36 rbi
Freel .238 3hr 12 rbi

Somewhat less production, but I don't see a "huge offensive hit" here-- looking at those players together with the two that replaced them. People seem to blame the trade on the Reds poor offense in the second half. The fact is the Reds two marquee offensive players, Griffey and Dunn, performed wildly below career norms in the second half. If you want to look at two players in the collapse, which you seem to want to do, those are the ones. They are paid strictly to put up the big offensive numbers they are capable of, and they just didn't. Ironically, I think the trade made the pitching take a huge hit after the break: Majewski single-handedly butchered at least 4 games I can remember with some truly horrific outings. Even the Reds dogs before Maj can't measure up to the awful pitching he did in the 2nd half, with Narron trotting him out there daily with a 12+ era simply because we traded for him. Ouch.One factor that can be considered is the fact that Lopez/Kearns went to a huge pitcher's park in DC. But, looking at the individual's player stats does nothing for me. What sounds off warning bells to me is the Reds offensive slump after the trade. Looking at the stats for 2 individual players in a different situation on a different team provides an illusion that may not be necessarily true. Just like the relievers ERA went down after the trade even though we added Majewski.

Wheelhouse
11-06-2006, 10:03 PM
One factor that can be considered is the fact that Lopez/Kearns went to a huge pitcher's park in DC. But, looking at the individual's player stats does nothing for me. What sounds off warning bells to me is the Reds offensive slump after the trade. Looking at the stats for 2 individual players in a different situation on a different team provides an illusion that may not be necessarily true. Just like the relievers ERA went down after the trade even though we added Majewski.

All manner of conjecture can be done, of course--I just wonder why the most concrete and measurable aspect of the Reds' 2nd half offensive collapse, Griffey and Dunn, is not nearly as referred to as the theoretical (and in my opinion, VERY theoretical) impact of the trade. And yes, the rest of the team went in the tank (except for Aurilia), but Griffey and Dunn's bats are the main reason they are paid 1/3 of the team's payroll. Aside from hitting they have little else to offer.