PDA

View Full Version : Nats lock up Kearns



jojo
02-01-2007, 02:44 PM
this per rotoworld:

*****Nationals agreed to terms with outfielder Austin Kearns on a three-year contract with a club option for 2010. The option would cover his second year of free agency. No word on the terms yet, but the guaranteed portion of this deal is probably worth about $16 million. Kearns asked for $4.25 million and was offered $3.65 million in arbitration.*******

I wonder what's holding up an extension for Harang? Krivsky should be more like Bowden (choking back lunch as I type that....)

Bigredfan#1
02-01-2007, 02:57 PM
Bummer, I was hoping he would come back to Cincy when he was able to go to go free agent!!

Phhhl
02-01-2007, 03:08 PM
That's a lot of money, but it's not a LOT of money. I remember Dunn talking about how miserable Kearns was in Washington shortly after the trade went down. I guess things change.

cincy09
02-01-2007, 03:15 PM
I remember Dunn talking about how miserable Kearns was in Washington shortly after the trade went down. I guess things change.
Just goes to show money talks......

I'd be willing to bet good money would keep Bronson in Cincy too

MartyFan
02-01-2007, 03:16 PM
Kearns was feeling threatened in the clubhouse...after he broke a leg in front of everyone nobody had the courage to mess with him!


I know...it's lame...and so was Nick Johnson after that game!

terminator
02-01-2007, 05:37 PM
this per rotoworld:

*****No word on the terms yet, but the guaranteed portion of this deal is probably worth about $16 million. Kearns asked for $4.25 million and was offered $3.65 million in arbitration.*******


$3.5M in 2007, $5M in 2008 and $8M in 2009. $10M option for 2010. Fairly reasonable given the current market. I'd take Kearns at that price long before Matthews and Pierre.

Also, it means we officially saved $7.4M in 2007 by trading Kearns and Lopez. I can't remember what Bray & Majic got, but I'm assuming it is around $1-1.5M combined since they are young. So a net of around $6M from the Trade.

Redlegs
02-01-2007, 05:50 PM
I wish Austin Kearns the best throughout the rest of his career. I think had he not gotten injured so frequently, the Reds may have felt differently about him. When he came to camp at 255 lbs (reportedly) resulting in his demotion to Triple A, I think that all but sealed his fate as a Redleg.

CrackerJack
02-01-2007, 07:51 PM
$3.5M in 2007, $5M in 2008 and $8M in 2009. $10M option for 2010. Fairly reasonable given the current market. I'd take Kearns at that price long before Matthews and Pierre.

Also, it means we officially saved $7.4M in 2007 by trading Kearns and Lopez. I can't remember what Bray & Majic got, but I'm assuming it is around $1-1.5M combined since they are young. So a net of around $6M from the Trade.

Glad Castellini and his wallet are happy with the trade, good for him. Woo hoo.

redsfanmia
02-01-2007, 08:01 PM
Glad Castellini and his wallet are happy with the trade, good for him. Woo hoo.

I think thats one veiw of the "the trade" that gets overlooked, at the end of the day it was a salary dump IMO. Castellini is really turning into a great owner.

jojo
02-01-2007, 08:26 PM
$3.5M in 2007, $5M in 2008 and $8M in 2009. $10M option for 2010. Fairly reasonable given the current market. I'd take Kearns at that price long before Matthews and Pierre.

Also, it means we officially saved $7.4M in 2007 by trading Kearns and Lopez. I can't remember what Bray & Majic got, but I'm assuming it is around $1-1.5M combined since they are young. So a net of around $6M from the Trade.

Both Bray and Majewski were making around league minimum: $350K each

terminator
02-01-2007, 10:38 PM
Glad Castellini and his wallet are happy with the trade, good for him. Woo hoo.

I just thought it was worth noting the (almost) final tally on the numbers. When the trade happened I remember thinking that Krivsky would end up looking like a genius because he would save $10MM and use that to sign a front-line pitcher like Schmidt or Zito (thereby essentially making it Kearns and Lopez for Bray, Majic and Schmidt). Instead the number is closer to $6MM and we all see that would buy just about nothing in the FA market this offseason.

MartyFan
02-02-2007, 12:14 AM
I think you also have to add to the amount of money saved the amount of money the team would have had to pay to get even more RP this offseason...look at the figures being paid to these guys and check the numbers again..it's more likely to be somewhere in the neighorhood of $10-$12 mil.

As for signing a front line ACE like Zito or Schmidt...look at the amount saved and look at what they signed for...as Hammer said in the 90's "Can't touch this."

Would that really have been a smart investment for this team? No...of course not...the money those guys make and they go out there once every fifth day and they DO not control every aspect of the game...otherwise they would both be 20-25 game winners every year...they are awesome but to bring in someone like that at this stage of the game with this team would be like paying $25 mil to a pitcher on a three year contract...oh wait...we did that.

Johnny Footstool
02-02-2007, 10:13 AM
I just thought it was worth noting the (almost) final tally on the numbers. When the trade happened I remember thinking that Krivsky would end up looking like a genius because he would save $10MM and use that to sign a front-line pitcher like Schmidt or Zito (thereby essentially making it Kearns and Lopez for Bray, Majic and Schmidt). Instead the number is closer to $6MM and we all see that would buy just about nothing in the FA market this offseason.

That's why I don't get excited anymore about owners saving money.

Payflex is a big, fat lie owners tell fans to keep them from burning their jerseys and cancelling their season tickets.

jojo
02-02-2007, 10:25 AM
Payflex is a big, fat lie owners tell fans to keep them from burning their jerseys and cancelling their season tickets.

The trade wasn't sold as part of a bigger plan to free payroll for the future.... it was actually sold as proof the ownership was willing to take on payroll and was adopting a win now philosophy....

registerthis
02-02-2007, 10:30 AM
The trade wasn't sold as part of a bigger plan to free payroll for the future.... it was actually sold as proof the ownership was willing to take on payroll and was adopting a win now philosophy....

Yes it was.

That's why all of this "the trade might work out one day" doesn't sway me in my opinion of the trade. We didn't dump Kearns and Lopez for pitching help that might help the team in '07 or '08, the deal was sold to Reds fans as something that would help the team NOW.

Woops.

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
02-02-2007, 10:43 AM
If Kearns were never a red and a rumor was out there that we were going to trade for him, I can only imagine all of the don't do it, this guys a bum, he gets hurt all of the time,he's not worth the money, he can't control his weight comments that would flood this board. Since he was once a red it's the worst mistake ever. I hear people say that they wish him well and I can see that if you followed him at through his minor league days, but he did nothing but let us down in the bigs:cry: , I am happy to see that he can now let down fans in another city.:beerme:

jojo
02-02-2007, 10:56 AM
If Kearns were never a red and a rumor was out there that we were going to trade for him, I can only imagine all of the don't do it, this guys a bum, he gets hurt all of the time,he's not worth the money, he can't control his weight comments that would flood this board. Since he was once a red it's the worst mistake ever. I hear people say that they wish him well and I can see that if you followed him at through his minor league days, but he did nothing but let us down in the bigs:cry: , I am happy to see that he can now let down fans in another city.:beerme:


He's due $16.5M over the next three years (yr 4 is a team option so the Nats could jettison him). That means he needs to be a 5 win player over that span. Pecota projects him to be a 6+ win bat over that period. Given he's also a plus defender (PMR to runs: '06= +7), there is a very good likelihood that Kearns will actually be a good value for the payroll. It's a very good contract for the Nats. Bowden must have started taking smart pills sometime last season. He certainly has had a very good off season.

bottom_feeder
02-02-2007, 11:14 AM
$3.5M in 2007, $5M in 2008 and $8M in 2009. $10M option for 2010. Fairly reasonable given the current market. I'd take Kearns at that price long before Matthews and Pierre.

Also, it means we officially saved $7.4M in 2007 by trading Kearns and Lopez. I can't remember what Bray & Majic got, but I'm assuming it is around $1-1.5M combined since they are young. So a net of around $6M from the Trade.

And then take that 6 million and subtract the 5 million we had to pay Gonzo to fill Lopez's roster spot. In all fairness, if we didn't have Majik and Bray, it's hard to predict what WayneK would've done.. But I'm going assume that he's spent all the money he was authorized to, so that Majik and Bray's spots would be filled with Low cost options like Meadows and Shackleford. So that adds about 700k..


So, we end up saving: 6 million (your number) - 5 million (Gonzo) + 700k (replacements for the pen). That's only saving 1.7 million. So we didn't even save enough money to pay for Stanton, Cormier, or Conine.

There's no financial justification for this trade.

Johnny Footstool
02-02-2007, 11:14 AM
If Kearns were never a red and a rumor was out there that we were going to trade for him, I can only imagine all of the don't do it, this guys a bum, he gets hurt all of the time,he's not worth the money, he can't control his weight comments that would flood this board. Since he was once a red it's the worst mistake ever. I hear people say that they wish him well and I can see that if you followed him at through his minor league days, but he did nothing but let us down in the bigs:cry: , I am happy to see that he can now let down fans in another city.:beerme:

He only "let us down" in that some people had impossible expectations of him. When it turned out he wasn't the second coming of Ted Williams, but rather a good-not-great player, fans decided he was a bum who didn't work hard enough.

jojo
02-02-2007, 11:18 AM
And then take that 6 million and subtract the 5 million we had to pay Gonzo to fill Lopez's roster spot. In all fairness, if we didn't have Majik and Bray, it's hard to predict what WayneK would've done.. But I'm going assume that he's spent all the money he was authorized to, so that Majik and Bray's spots would be filled with Low cost options like Meadows and Shackleford. So that adds about 700k..


So, we end up saving: 6 million (your number) - 5 million (Gonzo) + 700k (replacements for the pen). That's only saving 1.7 million. So we didn't even save enough money to pay for Stanton, Cormier, or Conine.

There's no financial justification for this trade.

Payroll looks to be around $71M right now....that would be about a $6M increase over last spring.

RANDY IN INDY
02-02-2007, 11:26 AM
He only "let us down" in that some people had impossible expectations of him. When it turned out he wasn't the second coming of Ted Williams, but rather a good-not-great player, fans decided he was a bum who didn't work hard enough.

The shape that he reported to camp in, a couple of season's ago didn't help that attitude. He looked like he had eaten KFC all winter, for that entire season. I guess that "impossible expectation" tag can be used on anyone that shows some ability that is above average.

Johnny Footstool
02-02-2007, 11:31 AM
The trade wasn't sold as part of a bigger plan to free payroll for the future.... it was actually sold as proof the ownership was willing to take on payroll and was adopting a win now philosophy....

When it failed miserably at it's primary goal (an immediate boost to the bullpen), people started rationalizing it as all kinds of things -- a salary dump, a clubhouse cleaning, a wake-up call for lazy Adam Dunn, etc.

It's telling when you can't justify a trade without having to spin it in ten different directions.

Johnny Footstool
02-02-2007, 11:35 AM
The shape that he reported to camp in, a couple of season's ago didn't help that attitude. He looked like he had eaten KFC all winter, for that entire season. I guess that "impossible expectation" tag can be used on anyone that shows some ability that is above average.

Yeah, and he pouted for a day or two when he got sent down to the minors. Even with all that, he was an above-average ML right fielder at age 26. But after listening to some Reds fans, you'd think he had the build of John Kruk and the ethics of Jeff "I broke my arm washing my truck" Kent.

jojo
02-02-2007, 11:55 AM
When it failed miserably at it's primary goal (an immediate boost to the bullpen), people started rationalizing it as all kinds of things -- a salary dump, a clubhouse cleaning, a wake-up call for lazy Adam Dunn, etc.

It's telling when you can't justify a trade without having to spin it in ten different directions.

Importantly though, the FO has never spun it any way other than the original one. While at the time I correctly called a spade a spade-basically payroll was a key component of the trade- its important to recognize payroll wasn't the only element. That's really an important distinction because the flaw in the trade is much deeper than a greedy ownership. Basically, the Reds made up their mind that Lopez wasn't in their future plans (and I don't really have a quibble with that part of the decision). With Lopez's eminent arbitration looming (and probably the fear that he'd play his trade value into the ground), Krivsky overreacted. I think Krivsky used payroll flexibility more as a way to rationalize doing a deal (he must've known was risky/bad) than he used payroll flexibility as the real motivation. Basically payroll was an element to the extent that Krivsky knew he didn't want to pay Lopez. Kearns was collateral damage. Krivsky didn't want Lopez. Krivsky desperately wanted bullpen help. Along came Bowden who recognized a GM setting himself up to be just the kind of patsy Bowden loves to take advantage of (and brag about to all who'll listen later). You don't want to pay Lopez? What makes you think I want to either? If you want bullpen help, you'd better offer a fairer deal.... yadda, yadda, yadda.....then the next day....what the F%#K!?! when you find out things you got in return are broken etc...

Anyway, the flaw wasn't *payflex*. It was desperation and an inability to properly value the players in question....those are really the two key ingredients that are mandatory in a potential trading partner of Bowden's.....

:fineprint

RANDY IN INDY
02-02-2007, 12:39 PM
Yeah, and he pouted for a day or two when he got sent down to the minors. Even with all that, he was an above-average ML right fielder at age 26. But after listening to some Reds fans, you'd think he had the build of John Kruk and the ethics of Jeff "I broke my arm washing my truck" Kent.

Personally, I really liked Kearns and his skill set. I was very dissapointed when he was traded, and I think he will probably be a solid right fielder for a few more years to come.

noskill27
02-02-2007, 12:47 PM
Unless Kearns reaches his potential the real soon, I'd hate to pay him those $8 million and $10 million salaries in a couple years...

RedEye
02-02-2007, 01:44 PM
$3.5M in 2007, $5M in 2008 and $8M in 2009. $10M option for 2010. Fairly reasonable given the current market. I'd take Kearns at that price long before Matthews and Pierre.

Also, it means we officially saved $7.4M in 2007 by trading Kearns and Lopez. I can't remember what Bray & Majic got, but I'm assuming it is around $1-1.5M combined since they are young. So a net of around $6M from the Trade.

Great. Spent that on three over 35 year-old relievers already.

Actually, I think it's ridiculous to keep trying to make 'the trade' into a money saving move. Krivsky was desperately trying to get relief help and he got taken to the cleaners.

remdog
02-02-2007, 03:25 PM
Basic question:

Would you rather have had Kearnes or Majewski in 2006?

Would you rather have had Lopez or Bray in 2006?

Flip flop them if you want but that was why the trade was made---for 2006. The Reds win the division, Krivsky looks like a genius. The Reds don't win the division, Krivsky looks like a goat.

Wayne is on display at your local petting zoo.

Rem

RANDY IN INDY
02-02-2007, 04:10 PM
Kearns and Bray.

remdog
02-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Kearns and Bray.So you would have traded Lopez for Bray and who would play SS? Castro? Phillips to short and Freel at 2nd?

Not being critical, just wondering. Personally, if I had made that trade (and I wouldn't have) I'd move Phillips to SS and go with Freel at second.

Might have improved the team but I don't think it would have been enough to get them the division. We'll never know though. (shrug)

Rem

registerthis
02-02-2007, 04:49 PM
So you would have traded Lopez for Bray and who would play SS? Castro?

What would it have mattered? Royce Clayton was dead weight there regardless.

If Clayton was the answer then yeah, sure, I'll take Castro.

Will M
02-02-2007, 04:51 PM
IMO Kearns was not a player to build around. The skills are there but not the attitude. Sadly I feel the same way about Dunn.

So far EE & Phillips seem to have a much better work ethic than Kearns and Dunn.

One of the good things about drafting and developing your own players ( rather than building your team on the free agent market ) is that you have a few years to see if they are the type of player you want to give a long term big money contract to.

RANDY IN INDY
02-02-2007, 05:14 PM
So you would have traded Lopez for Bray and who would play SS? Castro? Phillips to short and Freel at 2nd?

Not being critical, just wondering. Personally, if I had made that trade (and I wouldn't have) I'd move Phillips to SS and go with Freel at second.

Might have improved the team but I don't think it would have been enough to get them the division. We'll never know though. (shrug)

Rem

Phillips to short and Freel to 2nd. I don't think Kearns should have ever been a part of that deal. I also think they should have picked up another player besides Bray in that deal.

remdog
02-02-2007, 06:21 PM
Phillips to short and Freel to 2nd. I don't think Kearns should have ever been a part of that deal. I also think they should have picked up another player besides Bray in that deal.

We're on exactly the same page there. :clap:

Rem

remdog
02-02-2007, 06:26 PM
What would it have mattered? Royce Clayton was dead weight there regardless.

If Clayton was the answer then yeah, sure, I'll take Castro.

The question was more about useing Castro there or taking a chance on a move of Phillips to SS. But I agree that Clayton was a black hole threre. In fact, to me, he would have been such a negative in a trade of Lopez for Bray I would have insisted that Jimbo keep him. And, as Randy has said, Lopez for Bray would have had to have another player included in the deal for the Reds.

Rem

Ron Madden
02-03-2007, 03:24 AM
Basic question:

Would you rather have had Kearnes or Majewski in 2006?

Would you rather have had Lopez or Bray in 2006?

Flip flop them if you want but that was why the trade was made---for 2006. The Reds win the division, Krivsky looks like a genius. The Reds don't win the division, Krivsky looks like a goat.

Wayne is on display at your local petting zoo.

Rem

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM
02-05-2007, 11:47 AM
Basic question:

Would you rather have had Kearnes or Majewski in 2006?

Would you rather have had Lopez or Bray in 2006?

Flip flop them if you want but that was why the trade was made---for 2006. The Reds win the division, Krivsky looks like a genius. The Reds don't win the division, Krivsky looks like a goat.

Wayne is on display at your local petting zoo.

Rem
Hard to answer the Kearns Majewski question. I have to assume the trade was made to get a healthy Majewski. That being said I would have rather had Kearns. If Maj was healthy I think that he could have made a real impact in an area where we really needed some help. My answer overall is: Healthy Maj over Kearns-Kearns over an injured Maj. I think this aspect is often over looked when it comes to the trade. Theres a good chance that if Maj was healthy we would have made the playoffs. The trade was made assuming not only that Maj was healthy but also that Everyday Eddie would finish out the season as closer. When looking at bullpen moves via trade I also look at the bullpen as a whole. Adding Bray, and Maj makes a pretty good bullpen when you have a closer doing as well as Eddie was, but without all of the pieces it's pretty hard to judge the move all together.

Johnny Footstool
02-05-2007, 12:18 PM
Basic question:

Would you rather have had Kearnes or Majewski in 2006?

Would you rather have had Lopez or Bray in 2006?

Flip flop them if you want but that was why the trade was made---for 2006. The Reds win the division, Krivsky looks like a genius. The Reds don't win the division, Krivsky looks like a goat.

Wayne is on display at your local petting zoo.

Rem

If Majewski and Bray were the only options available, I would have kept Kearns and Lopez and waited until the off-season to make a deal.