PDA

View Full Version : Reassessing the Kearns trade (Blog article)



Golgafrinchan
05-02-2007, 04:20 PM
Here's a fantastic look at last year's big trade, just posted today. The author makes some very good points and comes to a conclusion that a lot of people may disagree with. I admit I was one of the many who thought the trade was a disaster.

Here's a link directly to the blog: http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2007/05/reassessing-kearns-trade.html


In Columbus, Ohio today it's sunny and 67 degrees. We get about six of these gorgeous days a year here in the Midwest, and when they occur I don't feel like litigating anything. Instead, I stare out my office window and contemplate the lie I'm going to tell my secretary to tell people who need me later in the day when I leave to sit on my patio and drink beer. As I was trying to decide between "sick kid" and "meeting" my friend and co-worker, Mark Noel, stepped into my office and we began to shoot the breeze about baseball.

Mark's a big Cincy fan. Despite living in Ohio, I don't follow the Reds all that closely, so I decided to pick his brain a bit about how they're doing. He thinks they're about a .500 team this year, and I tend to agree with him. Eventually, however, the talk turned to the Reds' future, about which Mark is quite optimistic. He's particularly high on the Reds' pitching. "They locked up Harang and Arroyo through 2011, and Homer Bailey may be the best pitching prospect they've had in 25 years," he said gleefully. "Plus, they have that guy in A-Ball, Thompson, who we got in the Kearns trade last year, and he looks like a stud."

Hmmm? I thought the Reds-Nats trade from last year was supposed to have been terrible for the Reds. Aaron Gleeman titled his column on the deal "Bowden 1, Krivsky 0," and called it "a disaster trade," that was "about as lopsided as it gets." MLB Trade Rumors called it "baffling" and said "this trade just looks bad" for the Reds. While I didn't think too much about the trade at the time, I distinctly recall my reaction being that the Nats probably fleeced the Reds.

Mark, who while a fan of the Reds is the first to point out when they do something stupid, said I was full of it. The Reds easily won that trade, he said, even before you figured in the arms they got back from the Nats. I was skeptical, and decided to investigate this for myself.

Guess what? Mark was right. The Reds won the trade hands down, both on the merits of the players exchanged, but more significantly, as a result of the roster flexibility and room for creativity the deal gave them. Don't believe me? Check it out:

To the Nats:

Remember that slightly crazy girl you hooked up with after the Sebadoh show back in '94? When you think of her now, you probably think of her as a hot little libertine minx who, if you only had the testicular fortitude to stick with her through all of the crazy, would be helping you organize that anti-globalization rally next month, assuming you two were able to take a break from all of that monkey sex you'd be having. But you didn't stick with her, and the fact that you didn't is the reason you're working in customer service today. *****.

Step back from the ledge, friend. If you saw her today there's pretty even odds that she's just like you: a bit pudgy, a bit pasty, and working a job every bit as unfulfilling as yours. No one is as cool as we like to think we could be today but for a few bad decisions, and that goes for skinny girls with cool tats, tight abs, and Lisa Loeb glasses too.

There are a handful of ballplayers who are like that crazy chick. Guys who we continue to think a bit too highly of without any real basis for doing so. Austin Kearns is one of those guys. After two thirds of a season in which he looked like Yastrzemski, everyone assumed that greatness was in the offing. After that he got hurt a lot and was jerked around by the Reds a bit, and many, myself included, thought he'd break out once he got healthy and stopped being jerked around. We forgot, however, that unless your name is Molitor, guys who get hurt a lot at a young age and end up getting jerked around typically don't blossom into superstars, no matter how much early promise they showed.

At age 27, Kearns appears to have topped out as a good, but not spectacular corner outfielder. There are a lot of those guys out there. In order to hold onto him, the Reds would have had to pony up something like the $17.5M the Nats gave him in the off-season, and by doing so, probably wouldn't have had a place to put Josh Hamilton (they would have likely kept Freel as the fourth outfielder due to his defensive flexibility). The same Josh Hamilton who is currently knocking the cover off the ball, bringing Cincy all kinds of good press for the second chance they're giving him, and costing Mr. Krivsky the league minimum.

No, the Reds didn't know that Hamilton was going to blow up like he has, but it was not unreasonable to expect that they could have come damn close to replacing Kearns' production for less than $17.5M over the next three years. Dealing Kearns allowed the Reds the flexibility to take a flyer on Hamilton, and roster flexibility is of paramount importance for a mid-market team like the Reds.

While Felipe Lopez showed some pop in 2005 it now looks like that was a fluke, and everyone knows that my granny plays a better short. Getting rid of his pathetic glove was an imperative, and doing so likely made Arroyo, Harang, Lohse, a lot happier, which is a good thing if Cincy wants to keep them around. Besides, it wasn't as if the Reds were planning on keeping him beyond 2006 anyway, especially since he is now arbitration eligible. And by getting a rent-a-vet like Royce Clayton (see below) the Reds were able to sign Alex Gonzalez, whose glove is really making Arroyo, Harang, and Lohse happy, even if he doesn't hit a lick. Bonus: this season he's been hitting a lick: .333/.374/.560. Fluke? Absolutely, but it's some pretty sweet gravy for Cincy.

To the Reds:

Only by replacing someone like Lopez could someone like Royce Clayton be considered a defensive upgrade, but a defensive upgrade he was, committing half as many errors as Lopez post-trade. Clayton was truly pathetic at the plate once he came to Cincy (OPS+ of 54), but Lopez was only a tad less pathetic for the Nats after the trade (OPS+ of 61). Like I said above, however, he was a rental, the Reds planned for him to be a rental, and he is currently helping the Blue Jays battle for their customary spot in third place in the AL East.

Brendan Harris: I'm not exactly sure why he was even in the deal, really, but he was. To goose Brandon Phillips? To take over short after they let Clayton go? Maybe. He's having a nice year for Tampa Bay so far, but he appears to be playing over his head. The Reds traded him for Aplayer Tobenamedlater (I think he's from Iceland based on the name) but word on the street is that he's moved around a lot and is damaged goods.

What about the arms the Reds got in return?

Gary Majewski: At the time he was thought of as the centerpiece of the trade for the Reds, who were in desperate need of bullpen help, and a mini-controversy developed over whether he was sent over by the Nats as damaged goods. Probably irrelevant at this point. Currently at Louisville. His stats thus far look awful (6.55 ERA in 11 games), but that's skewed by one horrific performance in which he gave up six runs. Hey, we all have a bad trip sometime, and if we give Majewski a mulligan on his, he's putting up a 1.86 ERA. Of course, if me auntie had a wang she'd be me uncle, so let's not go crazy praising the guy. At 27 he's old for AAA and isn't likely to contribute more to the Reds than mopup duty.

Bill Bray: The only one to see significant time with the big club last year, Bray looks to be slightly above-average bullpen fodder (ERA+ of 113 last year) . He's currently on the Reds' DL due to a line drive to his pitching hand. He isn't likely to be the second coming of Pedro Borbon, but he's a lefty, and who the hell doesn't need a lefty every once in a while?

Daryl Thompson: This guy looks interesting. Despite being injured for much of his rookie league season, he's currently overpowering the competition in low-A ball less than six months after his 21st birthday: 4 starts, 23 innings pitched, 19 strikeouts, 1 walk, an ERA of 0.39, and a 4-0 record. Small sample size? Sure, but his K/BB ratio was pretty sweet in limited play last year as well. I haven't seen him pitch, which is inexcusable given that his home park is only about an hour away from Chez Shyster, but he smells legit to me. He needs to be promoted, like yesterday, and assuming he continues to mow them down in Sarasota, he should end the season in AA. Depending on how he does there, he could potentially compete for a slot in the rotation as early as next year, though more likely in 2009. Unless it's all smoke and mirrors, he alone could tip the trade ridiculously in the Reds' favor.

Can someone tell me what was Cincy supposed to have regretted about this trade? From the Reds' perspective, it was effectively a trade of Kearns and Lopez for Hamilton and Gonzales, a potential ace, one respectable bullpen arm, and some roster fodder. Did Krivsky plan it this way? No, he lucked into Hamilton and had no idea that he was going to get Gonzalez, but as Branch Rickey said, luck is the residue of design. Without Kearns and Lopez leaving, the Reds don't have the flexibility to get two players who have been helping them tread water so far this year and who are likely to be key players on what I feel will be truly contending Reds teams in the next 2-3 years (but that's another column). They also don't have Daryl Thompson.

I should note that MLB Trade Rumors' criticism of the deal was specifically couched in terms of how it helped, or didn't help, the Reds "this year." So how did that work out?

Reds record pre-trade: 45-44
Reds record post-trade: 35-38
Games behind for a playoff spot: 8

Did the trade cost them some games? I actually doubt it. Clayton was a slight defensive upgrade over Lopez, and the extra at-bats for Freel over Kearns didn't result in as much of a falloff as many thought it would (Freel's OBP was actually higher than Kearns last year). Even if it did cost them a couple of games, it didn't cost them a playoff spot. That first-half record was supported by the Reds' now-typical fast, flukelike early start. Brother Pythagoras had them as a 76 win team, so if anything they played above their heads simply to be within 10 games of the wild card.

So, care to reassess things Mr. Gleeman? MLB Trade Rumors? The rest of the people who piled on Krivsky last year? Personally I don't care because I'm not a Reds fan. I will forward all apologies to Mark, however, because this matters to him greatly.

TOBTTReds
05-02-2007, 04:40 PM
Although I thought I was ridiculously tired of this trade being re-hashed, this is a great article.

KoryMac5
05-02-2007, 04:45 PM
Interesting look I always like when people take the other side on subjects that are extremely lopsided in these parts. I will say I have also been impressed with Thompson, pre-injury he was compared to D-train.

fisch11
05-02-2007, 04:51 PM
Thank you. Finally someone agrees that this team is better "after" the trade. Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone. Nuff said. Really great article considering its an unbiased source.

Redsland
05-02-2007, 04:54 PM
I should note that MLB Trade Rumors' criticism of the deal was specifically couched in terms of how it helped, or didn't help, the Reds "this year." So how did that work out?

Reds record pre-trade: 45-44
Reds record post-trade: 35-38

Did the trade cost them some games? I actually doubt it.…Even if it did cost them a couple of games, it didn't cost them a playoff spot.
Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure.

Also, he allows that the trade may have cost them "a few games," but dismisses the idea that those games might have meant a playoff spot. How many games back were the Reds last year? Three and a half.

BRM
05-02-2007, 04:54 PM
Thank you. Finally someone agrees that this team is better "after" the trade. Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone. Nuff said. Really great article considering its an unbiased source.

Well, Gonzo probably wouldn't have been here but I personally think Josh would be here either way. He wouldn't be getting the PT he is now but he would have been in Cincinnati. Besides, this "article" assumes if this particular trade wouldn't have been made that Kearns and Lopez would still be in Cincinnati today. They could have been traded in the offseason.

Once again, it was never about who was traded. It was all about the return. Most on here had no problems at all with the idea of trading Kearns and Lopez.

KoryMac5
05-02-2007, 05:02 PM
Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure.

Also, he allows that the trade may have cost them "a few games," but dismisses the idea that those games might have meant a playoff spot. How many games back were the Reds last year? Three and a half.

One game over .500 does not constitute a winning ball club. Also how many games did the likes of Hammond and White cost us. Everyone knows that the trade was bad for last year no need to rehash the point. I just like the authors points about the flexibilty it gave us this year and the fact that Thompson is still an unknown commodity.

Redsland
05-02-2007, 05:08 PM
Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone.
That one of it's flaws, IMHO. The author is basically saying Lopez and Kearns could have been released by the team and that would have been a good move, since it would have opened space for Hamilton and Gonzalez.

Trades are supposed to send talent out of your organization while bringing new talent into your organization. This one didn't, as the author himself admits:

To the Reds:

Only by replacing someone like Lopez could someone like Royce Clayton be considered a defensive upgrade, but a defensive upgrade he was, committing half as many errors as Lopez post-trade. Clayton was truly pathetic at the plate once he came to Cincy (OPS+ of 54), but Lopez was only a tad less pathetic for the Nats after the trade (OPS+ of 61).

Brendan Harris: I'm not exactly sure why he was even in the deal, really, but he was. To goose Brandon Phillips? To take over short after they let Clayton go? Maybe. He's having a nice year for Tampa Bay so far, but he appears to be playing over his head.

Gary Majewski: At 27 he's old for AAA and isn't likely to contribute more to the Reds than mopup duty.

Bill Bray: The only one to see significant time with the big club last year, Bray looks to be slightly above-average bullpen fodder (ERA+ of 113 last year) . He's currently on the Reds' DL due to a line drive to his pitching hand. He isn't likely to be the second coming of Pedro Borbon, but he's a lefty, and who the hell doesn't need a lefty every once in a while?

Daryl Thompson: This guy looks interesting…
…He's also in High-A ball, and Reds fans should have no trouble remembering a long line of promising washouts who looked just fine up to that point. Thompson won't redeem that trade, and BJ Ryan doesn't make the Juan Guzman trade into a bad one.

Redsland
05-02-2007, 05:09 PM
One game over .500 does not constitute a winning ball club.
I'm looking at my dictionary right now, and it disagrees with you.

TheBigLebowski
05-02-2007, 05:10 PM
He makes some good points but, his conclusion is flawed on several levels.

Firstly, I pointed out a couple of weeks ago that Hamilton was a great unintended benefit of The Trade and was widely lambasted by those who replied. I still don't think Hamilton is in the bigs if we still have Kearns although, I still think we would have gone after him.

Secondly, I do agree that Reds' fans as a whole overvalued Kearns. There's a guy who can match or exceed Kearns' production in every outfield in the majors. He is all he is ever going to be - a decent defensive OF with a slightly better-than-average bat. Definitely not worth the money. I do take exception with his view of Lopez. The guy is a former all-star. He has a nice bat, can hit for power, and is a threat on the basepaths as well.

My biggest grievance with the author's conclusion is that the Reds won The Trade simply because we may be a better overall baseball team now than we were pre-trade. Too many other variables to consider. Furthermore, we're 13-13 right now and, overall, we have a losing record post-The Trade.

The guys we traded to Washington, regardless of the author's opinion of them, had MORE VALUE than the return they fetched. Look at the return. Majewski (garbage), Bray (TBD, by no means a solid bet to be anything more than an average MR), Brendan Harris (gone, had no true value), Royce Clayton (won't even go there) and Daryl Thompson. Thompson may end up being the centerpiece of the deal!

Ultimately, my point is that Kearns and Lopez probably should have been dealt and likely would have been dealt. However, had we traded those guys for good value, we'd be a much better team than we are.

Johnny Footstool
05-02-2007, 05:11 PM
Thank you. Finally someone agrees that this team is better "after" the trade. Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone. Nuff said. Really great article considering its an unbiased source.

OK, let's do this again...

Getting Hamilton was not dependent on getting rid of Kearns. Hamilton could have taken Denorfia's or Hopper's spot on the roster even if Kearns were still a Red. Krivsky would have signed Gonzalez as a free agent regardless of Lopez's status. And he still could have traded Kearns and Lopez at the deadline or in the offseason instead of when he was desperate.

The article ignores the timing of the trade, which was a key component. Krivsky was willing to overpay to fill a gaping need during a potential playoff run. The trade failed miserably in that respect, which was it's main purpose.

Whether or not the secondary effects of the trade are positive or not remains to be seen. Bray could get healthy and morph into a lights-out closer. Majweski could actually log some quality innings in a Reds uniform. That wouldn't change the fact that the trade failed in its primary purpose.

guttle11
05-02-2007, 05:13 PM
Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure.

Also, he allows that the trade may have cost them "a few games," but dismisses the idea that those games might have meant a playoff spot. How many games back were the Reds last year? Three and a half.

IIRC, the Reds went on a pretty good run right after the trade (went from, like, 2 games out to 3 games up in the WC), and were right in the thick of both races nearly into September. Then the whole team went in a slump and the fell out of contention.

Would Kearns and Lopez have helped them maintain their pace and stay in the race the whole way? Maybe, but going by their record with them the first half of the year, I'd say no. Push.

Kc61
05-02-2007, 05:16 PM
Good article. As I said at the time, it seemed obvious that Krivsky just didn't want these two players on the Reds team.

Right now, through free agency, the Reds have improved shortstop. They have filled the outfield void through Rule 5. We'll see what the pitchers acquired add over time.

The big remaining void, however, is a righty bat. The Reds have not replaced Kearns' stick from the right side. It is something the Reds need to do.

PuffyPig
05-02-2007, 05:17 PM
Once again, it was never about who was traded. It was all about the return. Most on here had no problems at all with the idea of trading Kearns and Lopez.

And mosy have stated the exact same thing when the trade was amde and today.

You have to give Wayne credit for trading the right guys.

You have top give Wayne big credit for replacing the 2 he traded with better guys.

But the return. That remains the rub.

Kc61
05-02-2007, 05:24 PM
And mosy have stated the exact same thing when the trade was amde and today.

You have to give Wayne credit for trading the right guys.

You have top give Wayne big credit for replacing the 2 he traded with better guys.

But the return. That remains the rub.

As was also said at the time, who knows what Wayne was offered for these guys? And Majewski, Bray and Harris are still around and could still make substantial contributions.

One thing about pitching: depth is key. Every guy doesn't pan out, but if you get a lot of good arms eventually you will have a good staff. Wayne added three in that trade. So far the reviews on them are decidedly mixed. Let's see how they pan out.

Puffy
05-02-2007, 05:58 PM
The whole premise is flawed.

The Reds could have acquired the same parts over the winter had Kearns and Lopez been held on to and traded over the winter. No one is arguing the Reds need Lopez and Kearns. We are arguing that the Reds could have improved EVEN more if they used the assets that were Kearns and Lopez more wisely.

I don't care that Lopez and Kearns are no longer here. I care about what came back, when it came back, and how it came back.

Sea Ray
05-02-2007, 06:07 PM
I don't get this:


Reds record pre-trade: 45-44
Reds record post-trade: 35-38
Games behind for a playoff spot: 8

We were like 3.5 games out. How does he figure we were 8 games out of a playoff spot?

M2
05-02-2007, 06:21 PM
If by "fantastic" you mean "pathetic" then, yes, that's one "fantastic" article.

Let's see, a guy who ranked as a top 10 RF last season and who currently ranks in the top 10 RFs this season and who boasts a career .823 OPS and who plays good defense and is headed into his prime is easy to replace and we shouldn't sweat having traded him for perhaps nothing.

Replacing a lousy defender with a bad defender fixes your defense even if it's been demonstrated that it didn't fix your defense.

The mere presence of Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez apparently was preventing the Reds from making good decisions. Who knew?

Daryl Thompson "smells legit." That's good to know. Two established major leaguers for a pleasantly odored kid in low A. Total steal! Why I didn't see it sooner I'll never know.

Bill Bray is left handed!

Royce Clayton is "helping" the Jays these days as he solidifies his claim to most runs below average for a MLB career, bad defense and all.

The one guy the Reds got who's doing something good in the majors confuses this guy. Clearly the Reds had to cut him because that's not what this trade was about and he might have prevented the team from making smart decisions or some such non sequitor like that.

Did the trade make the team worse? Well, let's make sure we ignore the team's W-L record and it's pre- and post-trade pythags and just make a blanket statement that it didn't. Wouldn't want to delve into that.

Drivel.

remdog
05-02-2007, 07:21 PM
Thank you. Finally someone agrees that this team is better "after" the trade. Great article stressing that Hamilton and Gonzalez (even though unanticipated) can only be here because Kearns and Lopez are gone. Nuff said. Really great article considering its an unbiased source.

Thoroughly convoluted and ignorant horse-bleep! I can see why the guy refers to himself as a shyster.

There! NOW that's 'nuff said'. :mooner:

Rem

Handofdeath
05-02-2007, 07:37 PM
If Bray and Majewski were both healthy and pitching like they did previous to the trade and before the injuries hit, I don't think there would be as many people complaining.

GAC
05-02-2007, 07:39 PM
Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

But was the trade the cause of that or simply several key players pretty much tanking it the last month?

The reasons I didn't mind the trade....


the Reds would have had to pony up something like the $17.5M the Nats gave him in the off-season.


While Felipe Lopez showed some pop in 2005 it now looks like that was a fluke, and everyone knows that my granny plays a better short. Getting rid of his pathetic glove was an imperative, and doing so likely made Arroyo, Harang, Lohse, a lot happier, which is a good thing if Cincy wants to keep them around. Besides, it wasn't as if the Reds were planning on keeping him beyond 2006 anyway, especially since he is now arbitration eligible.

And no, getting Hamilton was not contigent upon getting rid of Kearns. But it sure may prove to be one nice pick up by Kriv. And Josh may soon have us saying "Austin who?"

And Gonzo at SS? No question mark there.

Kriv was intent on improving the middle defense, and he has done so.

Lets move on. ;)

dougdirt
05-02-2007, 07:39 PM
If Bray and Majewski were both healthy and pitching like they did previous to the trade and before the injuries hit, I don't think there would be as many people complaining.

Sure they would. That what Reds, scratch that, Cincinnati fans do.

M2
05-02-2007, 07:45 PM
If Bray and Majewski were both healthy and pitching like they did previous to the trade and before the injuries hit, I don't think there would be as many people complaining.

They aren't healthy, caveat emptor. Majewski's luck was bound to run out anyway. Bray had barely pitched in the majors before the trade. He's more of an interesting unknown than a defined quantity. As we saw last year, he's got some maturing ahead of him before he can be considered a featured reliever.

There wouldn't be much complaint if Krivsky had made a better trade either.

reds44
05-02-2007, 07:55 PM
If you want to say the team is better now then it was with Lopez and Kearns that is fine because we have Hamilton and Gonzalez.

However, that still doesn't change the fact that was a god awful trade. We could have gotten alot more them. Alot more.

reds44
05-02-2007, 07:55 PM
The whole premise is flawed.

The Reds could have acquired the same parts over the winter had Kearns and Lopez been held on to and traded over the winter. No one is arguing the Reds need Lopez and Kearns. We are arguing that the Reds could have improved EVEN more if they used the assets that were Kearns and Lopez more wisely.

I don't care that Lopez and Kearns are no longer here. I care about what came back, when it came back, and how it came back.
Exactly.

flyer85
05-02-2007, 08:05 PM
actually it' the lousy fans that are holding the Reds back. :mooner:

cincinnati chili
05-02-2007, 08:21 PM
A trade is NEVER good just because it opens a spot for someone already on the team.

I could care less whether the Reds are better with Freel playing every day than with Kearns playing every day.

Tell me what we got back for Kearns (nothing), and then I'll evaluate the trade (horrible).

MaineRed
05-02-2007, 09:47 PM
BJ Ryan might not make the Juan Guzman trade a bad one for the Reds but he darn sure made it a good one for the Os.

Serious question, how do we KNOW what the primary purpose of that trade was? I see a lot of people using terms like primary reason and I wonder where people get this info. Obviously the team was in a play-off run and WK was trying to help the team and it is easy to say "he failed" as so many here absolutely LOVE saying. However there were A LOT of factors that caused the Reds to fail in their mission to make the play-offs and there is far from any evidence that the Reds make it to October if that trade wasn't made.

And lets be honest, if the Reds MADE the play-offs last season people would still complaining about this trade. It has NOTHING to do with the Reds missing the play-offs. The team could have won the World Series and unless Majewski and Bray turned into Dibble and Myers conversations like this are still happening. You guys are hypocrites otherwise. reds44's stance that it is fact we could have done this or that should have not changed, even with raised pennants.

Was it a bad trade or not? And a play-off spot would have changed THAT?

Natty Redlocks
05-02-2007, 10:22 PM
Good article. As I said at the time, it seemed obvious that Krivsky just didn't want these two players on the Reds team.

Right now, through free agency, the Reds have improved shortstop. They have filled the outfield void through Rule 5. We'll see what the pitchers acquired add over time.

The big remaining void, however, is a righty bat. The Reds have not replaced Kearns' stick from the right side. It is something the Reds need to do.

No disagreement here, but the question is where this righty bat will go. With Hamilton, Dunn and Griffey now and Votto and Bruce on the way, does anyone else have the feeling it's gonna be goodbye Dunn, hello Craig Monroe sometime this year?

Kc61
05-02-2007, 10:44 PM
No disagreement here, but the question is where this righty bat will go. With Hamilton, Dunn and Griffey now and Votto and Bruce on the way, does anyone else have the feeling it's gonna be goodbye Dunn, hello Craig Monroe sometime this year?


Actually, my guess is that the righty bat is at first base with Votto ultimately being trade bait. Just my guess.

I really disagree with a lot of the posts in this thread. In today's baseball market, sometimes ridding the team of current or potential high salaries is reason enough for a trade. Here, the Reds cast off two guys, with rather large upcoming salaries, and got back three reasonably young, inexpensive arms. Spending some of that money, the Reds got Gonzo. They picked up Hamilton. And presumably they will get a righty bat at some point, spending some more.

I don't know what other teams offered for Kearns/Lopez. I also regret that one of the arms acquired, Majewski, was not healthy. But you have to evaluate trades differently in a free agency era. Sometimes, getting inexpensive players back -- and spending the savings elsewhere -- is good enough.

M2
05-02-2007, 11:19 PM
And lets be honest, if the Reds MADE the play-offs last season people would still complaining about this trade. It has NOTHING to do with the Reds missing the play-offs. The team could have won the World Series and unless Majewski and Bray turned into Dibble and Myers conversations like this are still happening. You guys are hypocrites otherwise. reds44's stance that it is fact we could have done this or that should have not changed, even with raised pennants.

You mean what if the trade had worked out? Hey, I've got an idea, let's pretend that didn't happen. Not just for the sake of argument, but because it didn't.

For the record, if the Reds made the playoffs, if the trade shored up the team's critical weakness and got the Reds into October baseball, I'd be singing Krivsky's praises for coming up with a crazy, but brilliant solution. Unfortunately it went the crazy, dumb route.

M2
05-02-2007, 11:21 PM
No disagreement here, but the question is where this righty bat will go. With Hamilton, Dunn and Griffey now and Votto and Bruce on the way, does anyone else have the feeling it's gonna be goodbye Dunn, hello Craig Monroe sometime this year?

What's the fascination with that guy? He was never good and now he's 30.

WVRedsFan
05-03-2007, 12:51 AM
Pre-trade: A winning ballclub. Post-trade: A losing ballclub.

That makes a trade whose stated purpose was to push the team into the playoffs, a failure.

Also, he allows that the trade may have cost them "a few games," but dismisses the idea that those games might have meant a playoff spot. How many games back were the Reds last year? Three and a half.

Exactly why this blog is simply bull. And the big stretch is including Hamilton in the trade when most of didn't know who or where he was last summer. What a total crock of bull.

MaineRed
05-03-2007, 06:54 AM
You mean what if the trade had worked out? Hey, I've got an idea, let's pretend that didn't happen. Not just for the sake of argument, but because it didn't.

No that isn't what I meant in even the littlest way.

It is bull to say this trade failed because the Reds missed the play-offs. Absolute bull. You guys think this trade stunk and that is fine but I'm not dumb enough to believe this harsh opinions would have changed had the team won a few more games.

I have no doubts you would give WK credit had the Reds done the things you said M2 but then again my original post wasn't directed at you. I'm not saying anyone and everyone who disliked this trade is in the specific camp I was talking about.

camisadelgolf
05-03-2007, 07:07 AM
My .02:
Two parts of the trade Wayne Krivsky denied are roster flexibility and salaries. Krivsky would have to be a complete idiot to not notice those two benefits. He refused not to mention them for morale reasons.

If you want evidence that Krivsky knows what he's doing, see the Krivsky Stats thread I just created.

redsmetz
05-03-2007, 07:38 AM
You mean what if the trade had worked out? Hey, I've got an idea, let's pretend that didn't happen. Not just for the sake of argument, but because it didn't.

For the record, if the Reds made the playoffs, if the trade shored up the team's critical weakness and got the Reds into October baseball, I'd be singing Krivsky's praises for coming up with a crazy, but brilliant solution. Unfortunately it went the crazy, dumb route.

I think many of us have been saying, despite the fact that others claimed the trade was solely for the needs of the 2006 Reds, that this trade, like all trades really, can only be judged in the long run. That's not to minimize the intent of making a difference last year - heaven knows the bullpen was exploding left and right. And I think it still remains to be seen how the Majewski situation plays out.

Some of what I liked about this article is for one, it understands that Royce Clayton was always only a throw in to finish out the year. Despite all the perceived love of vets folks on RZ insist Krivsky has, there was never any chance of Clayton sticking with the Reds.

The book will remain out on Bray and Majewski. I think Bray continues to have a lot of upside and can be a plus in the pen for years to come. It's more difficult to say regarding Majewski - will he ever regain the form he had when he pitched well? Possibly not and that is a minus for this trade. Whether the Reds ever file their formal protest (and the clocks still ticking there), maybe something more will come from Bowden's deviousness.

I suspect the article is correct that Brenden Harris was thrown in to be available if nothing else came along for the infield. With the signing of Gonzalez, he became expendable. I can't remember if we sold Harris to Tampa Bay or if it was the proverbial PTBNL, but it's a break even on him.

Thompson, of course, it will have to be seen. Those folks who noted that there have been many a stellar minor leaguer who never made the big time, so again, we'll have to see.

All of that said, it's still too early to say whether this trade was a success or a failure or even a wash. Certainly roster room for this season has been helped, as has budgetary considerations. I understand folks will disagree that more might have been found in return, but that is really just speculation. We have no way of knowing.

remdog
05-03-2007, 08:20 AM
I think many of us have been saying, despite the fact that others claimed the trade was solely for the needs of the 2006 Reds, that this trade, like all trades really, can only be judged in the long run.......it's still too early to say whether this trade was a success or a failure or even a wash.

That's a totally false premise. To say that every trade can only be judged 5, 10 or 20 years down the road is absurd. Just as someone can trade a stock on the NYSE for short term gain a team can trade a player for short term gain. Teams trade for a Doyle Alexander or a Jose Guzman and don't care at all about any of the players involved in the trade---they only care about the short term results.

The whole emphasis of this trade was to get the Reds into the playoffs in '06. Anyone denying that simply makes themselves look foolish or unaware of what teams sometimes do.

Hey, Krivsky will be alright. He's got some talent and he's learning day by day. But let's be honest here. It was a crappy trade for all of the reasons mentioned and no amount of 'spin' by the Krivsky apologists is going to change that. Just admit that, talk about the positive things he's done and, if you really, really must, come back here in 10 years and tell us how it all worked out.

Rem

GAC
05-03-2007, 08:52 AM
What did we get back for Sean Casey, who, IMO, was far more vital, or contributed more, to this team then either of those two? Yet not too many were upset of what was basically a salary dump, or that we should have gotten more from a player who had a far better track record. ;)

registerthis
05-03-2007, 09:37 AM
It is bull to say this trade failed because the Reds missed the play-offs. Absolute bull.

Fine. I'll say the trade failed because the Reds haven't gotten an ounce of major league production out of anyone they received in that trade.

The trade failed because the return was so pithy. When you trade two productive major league starters, you expect to get more back than two marginal middle relievers (at least one of whom may never throw a pitch for you), a junk infielder, and minor league fodder.

What's "total bull" is trying to shine and gloss up this turd of a deal into anything other than the complete failure that it is.

registerthis
05-03-2007, 09:41 AM
What did we get back for Sean Casey, who, IMO, was far more vital, or contributed more, to this team then either of those two? Yet not too many were upset of what was basically a salary dump, or that we should have gotten more from a player who had a far better track record. ;)

Actually, I recall quite a bit of wailing around here over receiving only Dave Williams for Casey.

However, I'd also point out that both Kearns and Lopez were producing at a higher rate than Casey when traded, and they weren't traded with the specific purpose of dumping their salaries. Additionally, whenever you trade not one but TWO of your starters, the stakes are raised considerably higher and the necessity of receiving back an equal or greater return is exponentially increased.

REDREAD
05-03-2007, 09:46 AM
I don't see how this can be spun as a "good trade". The author's argument basically boils down to the fact that he thinks Gonzo is better than Lopez and Hamilton is better than Kearns.

The same logic could justify trading Dunn and Harang for a can of beans, as long as we later traded for Vlad and signed Clemens as a FA.

Puffy
05-03-2007, 09:49 AM
What did we get back for Sean Casey, who, IMO, was far more vital, or contributed more, to this team then either of those two? Yet not too many were upset of what was basically a salary dump, or that we should have gotten more from a player who had a far better track record. ;)

Ummmmm, hello? There were some of us screaming what an absurd return that was - to which you specifically replied, "You guys wanted him gone and O'Brien trades him and now you complain about the return"

You should really try and remember what you wrote and when you wrote it.

Johnny Footstool
05-03-2007, 09:50 AM
If the primary purpose of the trade wasn't to shore up the bullpen for a playoff run, then please explain why Krivsky didn't make the deal in the offseason? Or at the deadline? Why did he make the trade right after the All-Star break?

registerthis
05-03-2007, 09:54 AM
If the primary purpose of the trade wasn't to shore up the bullpen for a playoff run, then please explain why Krivsky didn't make the deal in the offseason? Or at the deadline? Why did he make the trade right after the All-Star break?

Panic in the streets of London
Panic in the streets of Cincinnati
...

M2
05-03-2007, 09:56 AM
No that isn't what I meant in even the littlest way.

It is bull to say this trade failed because the Reds missed the play-offs. Absolute bull. You guys think this trade stunk and that is fine but I'm not dumb enough to believe this harsh opinions would have changed had the team won a few more games.

I have no doubts you would give WK credit had the Reds done the things you said M2 but then again my original post wasn't directed at you. I'm not saying anyone and everyone who disliked this trade is in the specific camp I was talking about.

Sorry, but I think it's pretty fair applying the standards the GM himself set up when he made the trade and had the trade lived up to those standards I have little doubt most everybody would give him credit for having made an ultimately right move. I've seen this scenario play out before. You should have heard the yowling in Boston when Bill Bellichick stuck with some kid named Tom Brady over his "franchise" QB Drew Bledsoe, but when it worked out people came around.

The problem with overpaying, and "overpaid" really doesn't do it justice, is that if you don't get the immediate bump from it then you're automatically into the realm of, "you'd have gotten more if you'd have waited." That deal had to produce in 2006 because it was a given that Krivsky could have acquired far more compelling talent for the long haul for two young, relatively established players. He paid a massive opportunity cost.

I respect the daring of the move and that Krivsky was willing to try something non-linear in order to right his team. Yet it failed and now the team can't go back and trade Kearns and Lopez for better returns. That's a pinch this franchise is feeling today and it will continue to feel for many tomorrows. Hopefully Bray can become a quality reliever. Maybe Majewski can eat some innings in mop up. Maybe Thompson will evolve into something. Yet it's all degrees of recouping your losses.

camisadelgolf
05-03-2007, 10:01 AM
It was a good trade. However, the only part of the trade that wasn't good was the players who were received in return.

REDREAD
05-03-2007, 10:12 AM
I really disagree with a lot of the posts in this thread. In today's baseball market, sometimes ridding the team of current or potential high salaries is reason enough for a trade. Here, the Reds cast off two guys, with rather large upcoming salaries, and got back three reasonably young, inexpensive arms. .

1.. Kearns ended up getting 17 million for 3 years.. about 6 million per year.
Freel just got signed for about 9 million for 2 years. If Freel doesn't leave as a FA, he's going to end up costing just about as much as Kearns (maybe an average of 1 million/year less).. Should we dump Freel? When you have arbitration eligible guys that have produced at average or better level, they are going to get pricey. That's the economic reality of this game. If a club can't hold on to some of those guys, they are pretty much doomed to be the Pirates.

2. The Reds got 3 cheap arms.. but if those guys aren't helping us, what good are they? Sure Bray and Thompson might eventually help us, but it's a net talent loss.

oneupper
05-03-2007, 10:18 AM
Should we dump Freel? .

Yes. The only thing Freel can do, that a Hopper/Wise (or Deno) type can't do is play the IF.

Either Castro or Freel are superfluous. Neither merited a LTC, IMO.

Redsland
05-03-2007, 10:24 AM
Serious question, how do we KNOW what the primary purpose of that trade was?
Here's (http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060713&content_id=1555255&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin) what Wayne said at the time:

"I think anyone who's seen us play in the first half realizes that the bullpen has been a little bit of a soft spot on our team and I think for us to compete and get in the playoffs in the second half, we had to upgrade the bullpen," Krivsky said.

And:

"We did what we needed to do."

And:

"We've got 16 games to play before the trading deadline," Krivsky said. "I didn't want to wait around until the trade deadline. I wanted to do something now. [I knew] if we did and we addressed the bullpen, then we've got it [for] 16 games extra."

That's a guy who's talking about the here and now.

Kc61
05-03-2007, 10:25 AM
1.. Kearns ended up getting 17 million for 3 years.. about 6 million per year.
Freel just got signed for about 9 million for 2 years. If Freel doesn't leave as a FA, he's going to end up costing just about as much as Kearns (maybe an average of 1 million/year less).. Should we dump Freel? When you have arbitration eligible guys that have produced at average or better level, they are going to get pricey. That's the economic reality of this game. If a club can't hold on to some of those guys, they are pretty much doomed to be the Pirates.

2. The Reds got 3 cheap arms.. but if those guys aren't helping us, what good are they? Sure Bray and Thompson might eventually help us, but it's a net talent loss.

But Krivsky wants Freel. He didn't want Kearns. He didn't want Lopez. He is paying the guy he thinks should be on his club. He didn't want to pay the guys he moved.

The club is doomed to be the Pirates only if he doesn't replace Kearns and Lopez. The Reds are not acting that way. They went out and signed a better shortstop and paid for him.

My point is that in a free agency era, the return on a trade is less important because you can get replacements via free agency (and other ways) if you are willing to pay for them.

As for the three inexpensive pitchers it may be a net talent loss. But it provides financial flexibility for Krivsky to go out and buy the players he wants. And he has three reasonably young arms to boot.

M2
05-03-2007, 10:49 AM
But Krivsky wants Freel. He didn't want Kearns. He didn't want Lopez. He is paying the guy he thinks has value. He didn't want to pay the guys he moved.

Talent is the true currency in baseball and Krivsky essentially burned his money on the deal. There should be no such thing as "I don't want Player X, dump him for whatever" if Player X has some identifiable talent. It's Wayne Krivsky's job to maximize his returns for players like Kearns and Lopez. There's two easy points of reference for Kearns and Lopez. Look at Wily Mo Pena and Jose Guillen landed for the club. Both Kearns and Lopez were worth more and combined they fetched less. Match the Guillen and Pena returns with those two and we're speculating on how many divisions the franchise will win in the coming years.


My point is that in a free agency era, the return on a trade is less important because you can get replacements via free agency (and other ways) if you are willing to pay for them.

The return on a trade is always of supreme importance and any GM who engages in an alternate line of thinking is headed toward unemployment. In fact, it's an attitude the Reds have taken throughout this century. For years we've watched the team dump and undersell capable players and been treated to excuses like this from much of the fanbase. Well, it's failed and miserably at that. What it begets is a franchise that's consistently been lacking in the necessary talent to play winning baseball and that finds itself without the player resources to make dramatic moves in the trade market.

Plus, cutting from the middle only means that you've freed up cash to pay for mediocrity on the free agent market. I'd rather the Reds ignore the free agent market. It's perhaps the least productive talent avenue the franchise could pursue. The Reds can't buy their way out of baseball's lower middle class.

Also, by cutting from the middle what you wind up with is a franchise that simultaneously too old and too green. What you want is a team with as many guys in the 27-30 bracket as possible.

princeton
05-03-2007, 11:50 AM
Talent is the true currency in baseball.


cheap young effective and uninjured pitching is the true currency in baseball. You can spend it anywhere. Everything else depends on the whims of the shopowner

commodities deflation was occurring, but it turned out not to be as bad as Krivsky thought

dealing with a known huckster and counterfeiter is always risky as well. Some of the greenbacks turned out to be doctored. Caveat emptor.

15fan
05-03-2007, 11:55 AM
Anyone ever watch Antiques Road Show?

There are all sorts of stories about how people picked something up at a yard sale, flea market, etc for next to nothing. Those things end up being worth some nice $$$.

After The Trade last summer, JimBo was the guy who was sitting with the appraiser on the show finding out that he'd given up next to nothing to get something that actually had some value. And everyone was wondering what in the heck Wayne was thinking when he put his stuff out on the table at his yard sale on only asked for 25 cents for each item.

M2
05-03-2007, 11:59 AM
cheap young effective and uninjured pitching is the true currency in baseball.

That's like saying alchemy is the best way to mint money. Seeing that most pitchers take a few years to adust to the majors they are rarely cheap, young, effective and uninjured at the same time. Certainly the lure of of cheap, young, effective, uninjured pitching is powerful, but the reality is it's more often mirage than oasis. Also, too many teams are unwilling to spend it until after it's value has diminished.

The value of someone you can put in your lineup who can produce should never be dismissed. The game does not overflow with talent. The teams with it have options. Those who don't suffer.

MaineRed
05-03-2007, 12:30 PM
You should have heard the yowling in Boston when Bill Bellichick stuck with some kid named Tom Brady over his "franchise" QB Drew Bledsoe, but when it worked out people came around.


Well I would say that the loud critics of Belichick, the ones who called him every name in the book had to do a little more than "come around".

BTW, I live amongst plenty of Pat fans so despite not giving a rats behind about them I am pretty much forced to follow them.

I know most of you guys down in Boston don't even know we exist but we still like to consider ourselves part of New England :rolleyes:.

KronoRed
05-03-2007, 01:10 PM
I don't see how this can be spun as a "good trade".

When you have an agenda you can write anything.

At this point in time this trade is a colossal failure, time will tell if it gets better, and I don't buy the "Kearns went so we could get Hamilton" we could have them both, throw Dunn at 1st and what do ya know? some right handed power on this team.

redsmetz
05-03-2007, 01:20 PM
In retrospect, I certainly overstated that trades can only be looked at in the long term. Yes, there are trades that are made for immediate needs. And if I said that last year's trade had nothing to do with last year (I haven't gone back and re-read it), that would have been a misstatement. I certainly remember the absolute disaster that the bullpen was. Krivsky himself acknowledged that he might have overpaid. In the long run, I believe we will be the better for the trade, but I recognize that time may prove that wrong. I don't believe it was the unmitigated disaster that many here believe it was.

princeton
05-03-2007, 01:29 PM
That's like saying alchemy is the best way to mint money. Seeing that most pitchers take a few years to adust to the majors they are rarely cheap, young, effective and uninjured at the same time. Certainly the lure of of cheap, young, effective, uninjured pitching is powerful, but ... too many teams are unwilling to spend it until after it's value has diminished.

High savings rates certainly can cause local economical problems. But the money's still valuable, and can be used by the bold investor to reap huge returns

nobody depreciates faster than an arbitration-eligible hitter who's no superstar, unless it's an arbitration guy with a so-so bat and absolutely no position. Krivsky sought greater liquidity (and some better innings). Right move, poorly executed.

thus ends the economy lesson. I must depart, as I'm having trouble balancing my checkbook this month. Nought, nought, carry the nought...

M2
05-03-2007, 01:29 PM
Well I would say that the loud critics of Belichick, the ones who called him every name in the book had to do a little more than "come around".

BTW, I live amongst plenty of Pat fans so despite not giving a rats behind about them I am pretty much forced to follow them.

I know most of you guys down in Boston don't even know we exist but we still like to consider ourselves part of New England :rolleyes:.

Most of the people on this board aren't from the area so I provided more detail than I figured you or I needed. Wasn't trying to present it as some Boston vs. the rest of New England thing. If anything I tend to view Boston as the odd man out in that equation.

Anyway, me not being a Pats fan either, I got a kick out of people frothing at the mouth during Brady's first year and marvelling at their inability to notice the amazing thing going on right under their noses. Though I think it's fair to say the Super Bowl silenced 95% of the naysayers and the hardcore holdouts were beaten into submission by later championships. I would expect most of the folks around here, had the Reds clicked in the wake of that deal and had those two relievers played key roles in a division winner, would have given Krivsky his due credit. Most everyone who disliked the Arroyo deal took the "I didn't see it, but hats off to Krivsky" tack when that panned out.

Over the course of the board's history it seems those who made the wrong call on moves that work out have little problem admitting it. Those who've thrown the thumbs up at bad moves seem to cling longer. Perhaps that's because people are happy when they're wrong about thinking something was a bad move while the sting of mistakenly viewing something as a good move lingers. Also, there's no need to rationalize something that worked. It works, yeah for us. There's really no need to rationalize something that didn't work either, but it's easy to do and, I have to say, over the years folks have come up with some fantastic flights of imagination on that score.

pedro
05-03-2007, 01:30 PM
Kearns will have a better career than Lopez IMO. He's off to a much better start this year and actually can play defense at an important position. I definitely agree the Reds sold low on him. Lopez OTOH, had almost no trade value IMO until the Reds moved him to second to see if he could handle it. Nobody IMO was going to give the Reds good value for Lopez with idea of him playing SS.

M2
05-03-2007, 01:37 PM
High savings rates certainly can cause local economical problems. But the money's still valuable, and can be used by the bold investor to reap huge returns

nobody depreciates faster than an arbitration-eligible hitter who's no superstar, unless it's an arbitration guy with a so-so bat and absolutely no position. Krivsky sought greater liquidity (and some better innings). Right move, poorly executed.

thus ends the economy lesson. I must depart, as I'm having trouble balancing my checkbook this month. Nought, nought, carry the nought...

That's the kind of genius thinking that cuts loose players like David Ortiz and David Eckstein. I'd rather win.

VR
05-03-2007, 01:50 PM
I'm still amazed that WK turned down all the better offers for those two and settled on payroll flexibility and young pitching. Just like he gave away LaRue despite all the pent up demand.

westofyou
05-03-2007, 01:53 PM
Just like he gave away LaRue despite all the pent up demand.

At the rate Jason is going he'll be out of the league next year.

17 K's in 38 ab's .105/.167/.184/.351

RBA
05-03-2007, 02:23 PM
At the rate Jason is going he'll be out of the league next year.

17 K's in 38 ab's .105/.167/.184/.351

I guess someone's missing the GABP.

Johnny Footstool
05-03-2007, 02:44 PM
I'm still amazed that WK turned down all the better offers for those two and settled on payroll flexibility and young pitching.

There probably were no better offers in mid-July. There probably were no other offers at that time.

Of course, once word got around that Krivsky was selling everyday major league players at below-wholesale price, I'll bet his inbox was flooded with offers. And who knows what would have happened if Krivsky had waited until the trading deadline. Maybe Soriano could have been thrown in?

If Krivsky took the only deal on the table, well, that further solidifies the position that the deal was made in desperation in order to bolster the team for a playoff run.

VR
05-03-2007, 03:12 PM
There probably were no better offers in mid-July. There probably were no other offers at that time.

Of course, once word got around that Krivsky was selling everyday major league players at below-wholesale price, I'll bet his inbox was flooded with offers. And who knows what would have happened if Krivsky had waited until the trading deadline. Maybe Soriano could have been thrown in?

If Krivsky took the only deal on the table, well, that further solidifies the position that the deal was made in desperation in order to bolster the team for a playoff run.


What if he took the best deal on the table? What if he was only offered crap from every other ML team? We'll never know. What we do know is RZ continually overrates it's own....the list is long, and I am as guilty as anyone here.

It was time to give two guys who were showing no improvement, while getting more expensive, a shot somewhere else. If every team knew this exceptional talent was out there, and offerred nothing for it....does it say something about their real value?

Much like LaRue....who was traded for by the Royals to be their backup? The Royals?

princeton
05-03-2007, 03:16 PM
I'd rather win.

win-- do you mean win it all?

you mean that you don't prefer to win enough, for a while?

why, you're at the wrong cashier

I'd shop at home if I were you. But if you like hanging with the little guys, then try this:

http://marlins.mlb.com

VR
05-03-2007, 03:18 PM
At the rate Jason is going he'll be out of the league next year.

17 K's in 38 ab's .105/.167/.184/.351

Please don't exaggerate

He's at .098 with 19k's in 41 ab's. :)

pedro
05-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Neither Kearns or Lopez is exactly lighting the world on fire right now. Lopez especially.

Ltlabner
05-03-2007, 03:37 PM
Over the course of the board's history it seems those who made the wrong call on moves that work out have little problem admitting it. Those who've thrown the thumbs up at bad moves seem to cling longer. .

I definatley defended the trade with great vigor. I the long term, I still believe it was the right thing to do. But definatley, I was dead wrong that it would help in the short term to fix the problems that were sinking the Reds ship at the time. It certinatanlly didn't help us get to the playoffs. So in the short term, it was a disaster. Long term? Who knows.



Kearns will have a better career than Lopez IMO. He's off to a much better start this year and actually can play defense at an important position. I definitely agree the Reds sold low on him. Lopez OTOH, had almost no trade value.

Agree 100%. Kearns is a valuable asset. Lopez had one decent season in 2005 and didn't look so hot last year while not exactly knocking the cover off the ball this year. Typically at RZ the "carear year" tag would be slapped all over him. Even at 2nd base I doubt he's going to cary his weight over the course of an entire season.



And who knows what would have happened if Krivsky had waited until the trading deadline. .

Yea, Kearns could have gotten hurt (again). Lopez could have continued to struggle and driven whatever value he had lower.

Again, I see that I was wrong about the trade fixing the short term problems but the notion that we could definatley have gotten a bigger return if he had waited is not true. Chances are good they could have gotten more, but it's not totally out of the realms of possibility that they could have been worth less at the end of the season based on their track records.

RedEye
05-03-2007, 04:06 PM
I think many of us have been saying, despite the fact that others claimed the trade was solely for the needs of the 2006 Reds, that this trade, like all trades really, can only be judged in the long run.

I think this is wrong. Trades can and should be judged both in the short term and the long term, and we've been doing this quite fervently here at RedsZone. Here's my attempt to break down the different arguments as they have emerged. I'll end with the one way I think The Trade could ultimately be redeemed.

SHORT TERM

1) The "win now" argument --

The Trade, as Krivsky admitted, was made for the short term--to shore up an imploding bullpen for a run at the playoffs. It can, and has, been judged on this basis. The Reds did not make the playoffs, and the relievers that were traded for hardly pitched. The loss of the players traded for the relievers also hamstrung the offense, which led to the slump and the Reds demise.

2) The "market value" argument --

This has been discussed ad nauseum on this board, and I think at this point even the pro-Trade pundits would concede defeat. Krivsky gave up way too much. Late-season trades by contending ballclubs tend to be risky in general, and Wayne--by his own admission--got desperate. So desperate, in fact, that he traded two young, cheap, ML regulars for way below their market value at the time. How do I know this? Well, I simply have to look at some of the other trades that were made for middle relief help after the Reds gave up Kearns and Lopez. Wickman and several others were acquired by contending teams who gave up far less. I will grant that Kearns and Lopez may have been overvalued by Reds fans, but that doesn't change the fact that they could have been dealt for far greater return.

IMO, there remains no defensible short term argument for this as a good trade. When the Reds didn't make the playoffs. More than that, and more importantly, none of the players they acquired in The Trade even particularly helped them to compete. If we had seen a replay of 1999, the Reds just missing the playoffs with Majewski and Bray anchoring a revivified bullpen, then the short term argument would be stronger. When this didn't come close to happening, the one viable argument for the short term evaporated.

LONG TERM

Usually, in a trade like this, a team mortgages long term value for short term gain, or vice versa. In itself, this isn't always a bad idea. See the B.J. Ryan for Juan Guzman trade, which was a success for both teams in exactly the expected terms. Another good trade along these lines (where the Reds were on the other end of the risk) was the Denny Neagle deal. We got three top prospects from the Yankees at the time, and Jimbo maxed out Neagle's value in a thin pitching market.

We're just beginning to see these arguments emerging, and they take on several forms...

1) The "replacement player" argument --

This claims that somehow trading Kearns and Lopez was a prescient move because it (either purposely or inadvertantly) made way for Josh Hamilton and Alex Gonzalez. This is simply not a tenable argument IMO because it cannot be evaluated in terms of the actual move. There is no way that Wayne had either of these players on his mind when he executed the deal. Further, it doesn't take away the fact that he still didn't get good value in return. This is not to say that Seabass and Hammy weren't good acquisitions. To the contrary, it is this type of acquisition that gives me hope about WK. However, as many other posters have argued, it is asinine to relate all of these later moves to The Trade because there are too many contingencies involved.

2) The "money dumping" argument --

This is related to the first one, in that many people argue that dealing Kearns and Lopez was a preemptive move to avoid having to pay them later. While this could have been an issue on Krivsky's mind, the fact remains that both players were under the Reds control for several more years when they were dealt. In fact, that was part of the reason that he should have been able to get more for them. We had both Kearns and Lopez for cheap, and hence they would have remained useful and tradable players for at least one more season. Any team that traded for them would have been in a similar good situation. Instead, we blew all of that value on one, ill-advised, desperate move.

3) The "Daryl Thompson" argument --

This is the only viable long-term argument that can be made about The Trade at this point. That's because it involves a player who was actually included in the deal when it was consummated. All of the other players are either injured or on other teams right now. I have little hope for Majewski. Bray may someday reach prominence, but one viable middle reliever or closer does not balance the loss of two young regular players (not to mention Ryan Wagner). Thompson has been dominant at single A, and could see a promotion soon. Further, Wayne has acquired marquee pitching talent in trades before by tacking relatively anonymous players from the low minors onto the back end of deals (see Bonser, Boof and Liriano, Francisco). IMO, only if both Thompson and Bray emerge into quality big league pitchers will the Reds somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat via the long term consequences of The Trade.

M2
05-03-2007, 04:10 PM
win-- do you mean win it all?

you mean that you don't prefer to win enough, for a while?

why, you're at the wrong cashier

I'd shop at home if I were you. But if you like hanging with the little guys, then try this:

http://marlins.mlb.com

Missed where Ortiz and Eckstein won rings in recent years did you?

We can take this back through baseball history if you'd like. Connie Mack twice made liquidity plays. The Boston Reds did it under Harry Frazee. Hey, they had money coming in and young arms galore. How'd that work again?

Also, given your Dombrowski fetish, have you noticed that when his teams actually popped up and won something they did so by accruing experienced players? Using your line of thinking the 2003 Marlins should have chucked their entire starting IF and 3/5 of the starting rotation (not coincidentally the ones who pitched the bulk of the innings to get the team to the playoffs). After all they were all arb eligibles and not superstars.

Winning teams, teams that go on to win it all, do it with talent, but nice to see you've been taken in by baseball's version of the pyramid scheme.

Johnny Footstool
05-03-2007, 04:24 PM
What if he took the best deal on the table? What if he was only offered crap from every other ML team? We'll never know. What we do know is RZ continually overrates it's own....the list is long, and I am as guilty as anyone here.

It was time to give two guys who were showing no improvement, while getting more expensive, a shot somewhere else. If every team knew this exceptional talent was out there, and offerred nothing for it....does it say something about their real value?

Much like LaRue....who was traded for by the Royals to be their backup? The Royals?

If he took the best deal on the table, then he should have waited until the trade deadline to see what other offers came in. If nothing better came up (which I highly doubt), then he could have waited until the offseason to jettison these two guys who were "showing no improvement" and getting more expensive.

He made the deal in desperation, and you never get the best return under those circumstances.

VR
05-03-2007, 04:42 PM
If he took the best deal on the table, then he should have waited until the trade deadline to see what other offers came in. If nothing better came up (which I highly doubt), then he could have waited until the offseason to jettison these two guys who were "showing no improvement" and getting more expensive.

He made the deal in desperation, and you never get the best return under those circumstances.


What evidence do we have that it was made in desperation? It may seem that way on the surface...but none of us know all the circumstances around this developing. And when we don't have all the facts, it's tough to nail down Krivsky.

I just struggle looking at the performances of these two, and LaRue for that matter....and thinking we are worse off for not having them on the roster....or thinking someone would have paid a king's ransom for them.

REDREAD
05-03-2007, 04:46 PM
Yes. The only thing Freel can do, that a Hopper/Wise (or Deno) type can't do is play the IF.

Either Castro or Freel are superfluous. Neither merited a LTC, IMO.

Actually, I do agree that we shouldn't extended Freel. He looks to be a part time player. Why guarantee a part time player money for his arb seasons? Not a huge goof (unless Freel gets a big injury), but I don't see the point in not going year to year with Freel. I do think that Freel is a step up from Hopper/Wise though, even though I am not a big Freel fan.

Castro was a dumb move. Why not just keep Brendon Harris to be the backup infielder? If they want Castro around for his influence, offer him a coaching job.

REDREAD
05-03-2007, 04:52 PM
But Krivsky wants Freel. He didn't want Kearns. He didn't want Lopez. He is paying the guy he thinks should be on his club. He didn't want to pay the guys he moved.

The club is doomed to be the Pirates only if he doesn't replace Kearns and Lopez. The Reds are not acting that way. They went out and signed a better shortstop and paid for him.

My point is that in a free agency era, the return on a trade is less important because you can get replacements via free agency (and other ways) if you are willing to pay for them.

As for the three inexpensive pitchers it may be a net talent loss. But it provides financial flexibility for Krivsky to go out and buy the players he wants. And he has three reasonably young arms to boot.


With all the crazy salaries being thrown at free agents this past winter, I bet Wayne could've gotten a really nice return for Kearns and Lopez this past winter. Sure, Carlos Lee is better than Kearns, but look at all the attention Lee got. We could've gotten something of value for Kearns and Lopez and still retained flexiblity. If Wayne had gotten fair value for Kearns and Lopez, I wouldn't have minded. I think he got fair value for Deno (for example).

There's never a reason to accept inferior talent, just to get rid of a player when the player isn't an albotross. Kearns and Lopez weren't albotrosses.
Heck, we arguably got better talent for Pokey Reese when we sent him to the Rockies on the verge of nontendering him. (Luke Hudson and Gabe White, although I think Reyes went to Col as well)..

REDREAD
05-03-2007, 04:58 PM
nobody depreciates faster than an arbitration-eligible hitter who's no superstar, unless it's an arbitration guy with a so-so bat and absolutely no position.
...

Disagree. Look at what Carlos Lee fetched to Milwaukee. Sure, Kearns isn't that good of a hitter, but he's better than so-so, plus he would be under a clubs control for several years as opposed to a rent-a-player.

Look at the Reds right now. They need a RH bat pretty badly (Gonzo will cool off). The best they could do was get Conine.

Above average hitters have value on the trade market, even if they are pending free agents. Especially relative cheap ones.

REDREAD
05-03-2007, 05:04 PM
What if he took the best deal on the table? What if he was only offered crap from every other ML team? ?

The the Reds should've held Kearns and Lopez until this winter. There was no need to immediately trade either of them.



Much like LaRue....who was traded for by the Royals to be their backup? The Royals?

LaRue will be interesting to watch. He's only had 38 ABs according to that other post. It will be interesting to see if he was washed up as of last year and has another bad year, or if he will get better with playing time.

My problem is that we paid KC about 3 million to take LaRue. Thus the net savings was only 2 million.. For 2 million, I keep LaRue, even if it means I have to dump Valentine.

Redsland
05-03-2007, 05:07 PM
What if he took the best deal on the table?
Let's take a look at the deals that were on the table after The Trade:

Minor-leaguer Zach Ward for Kyle Lohse
AAA Justin Germano for Rheal Cormier
PTBNL (minor-leaguer Zac Stott) for Ryan Franklin
Future considerations for Scott Schoeneweis
Future considerations for Sun-Woo Kim

That's five major league relievers, all of whom were acquired without giving up any major league talent at all. Cormier, Franklin, Schoeneweis, and Lohse all put up numbers good enough to draw interest (and in some cases extensions) from Wayne, and all of those acquisitions with the possible exception of Kim drew praise from various quarters. Yet none of them required a first-round draft pick in return, much less three of them.

That's what the market looked like for relievers. "Future considerations." "PTBNL." Not everyday starting outfielders and All-Star shortstops.

Wayne Krivsky himself showed how vastly he overpaid for relief pitching in the days and weeks after the trade. Any other accounting of events is delusional. Unless of course you think the key to the trade was Brendan Harris, Devil Ray; or Royce Clayton, Blue Jay; or the guy who "smells right" to a blogger, but won't sniff the majors for four-ish years, if ever.

VR
05-03-2007, 05:12 PM
Let's take a look at the deals that were on the table after The Trade:

Minor-leaguer Zach Ward for Kyle Lohse
AAA Justin Germano for Rheal Cormier
PTBNL (minor-leaguer Zac Stott) for Ryan Franklin
Future considerations for Scott Schoeneweis
Future considerations for Sun-Woo Kim

That's five major league relievers, all of whom were acquired without giving up any major league talent at all. Cormier, Franklin, Schoeneweis, and Lohse all put up numbers good enough to draw interest (and in some cases extensions) from Wayne, and all of those acquisitions with the possible exception of Kim drew praise from various quarters. Yet none of them required a first-round draft pick in return, much less three of them.

That's what the market looked like for relievers. "Future considerations." "PTBNL." Not everyday starting outfielders and All-Star shortstops.

Wayne Krivsky himself showed how vastly he overpaid for relief pitching in the days and weeks after the trade. Any other accounting of events is delusional. Unless of course you think the key to the trade was Brendan Harris, Devil Ray; or Royce Clayton, Blue Jay; or the guy who "smells right" to a blogger, but won't sniff the majors for four-ish years, if ever.

What matters is what deals were on the table for those two. Bray and Maj were young relievers with decent ceilings. The others....chaff.

I don't think it matters to other GMs as much as us, when you're talking about 'former' first rounders. What matters is value for price you're about to be paying...which neither Lopez nor Kearns deliver on. The league realized that.

TRF
05-03-2007, 06:03 PM
I go to one 2 hour long meeting and this thread happens without.

pheh. M2 is more eloquent than I am any how, so... What he said.

Redsland
05-03-2007, 06:30 PM
What matters is what deals were on the table for those two. Bray and Maj were young relievers with decent ceilings. The others....chaff.
Chaff? That's not what major league general managers thought.

They saw fit to sign Franklin, Schoenweis, Cormier, and Lohse to brand new deals totaling $11.05 million for this year alone.

Eric_Davis
05-03-2007, 06:37 PM
Excellent article...though I'm wondering....is Harris really damaged goods? I've heard that before.

M2
05-03-2007, 06:56 PM
Disagree. Look at what Carlos Lee fetched to Milwaukee. Sure, Kearns isn't that good of a hitter, but he's better than so-so, plus he would be under a clubs control for several years as opposed to a rent-a-player.

Look at the Reds right now. They need a RH bat pretty badly (Gonzo will cool off). The best they could do was get Conine.

Above average hitters have value on the trade market, even if they are pending free agents. Especially relative cheap ones.

Great post. Lee's also interesting because Austin Kearns was pretty much the same hitter at age 26 that Lee was. Plus Kearns can play the field fairly well, something Lee never did. Lee, like most hitters, stepped up his game a bit from ages 27-30. If anything, Kearns, who turns 27 in 17 days, should have been more valuable.

Eric_Davis
05-03-2007, 08:10 PM
Great post. Lee's also interesting because Austin Kearns was pretty much the same hitter at age 26 that Lee was. Plus Kearns can play the field fairly well, something Lee never did. Lee, like most hitters, stepped up his game a bit from ages 27-30. If anything, Kearns, who turns 27 in 17 days, should have been more valuable.


That's a joke!

Kearns and Lee are polar opposites in terms of both talent and what they've proven as a professional.

Going into 2007 Kearns averaged 167 Total Bases per year. (C'mon, give me all the excuses. :rolleyes: ) Carlos Lee averaged 283 Total Bases per year including the last four years never being below 300 Total Bases. You can pencil him in for 300 Total Bases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He's proven he can produce. All Kearns has proven is that he'll get injured and have long slumps nearly every year. Kearns has topped 186 bases (his rookie year) once....just once,...and that was only 251 Total Bases last year.

By the time Lee was 26, Lee had averaged 251 Total Bases every year!

Kearns is not an someone you want to rely on every day as your starting outfielder, especially considering how much money he costs when he hasn't proven anything yet in his career.

MaineRed
05-03-2007, 09:16 PM
Chaff? That's not what major league general managers thought.

They saw fit to sign Franklin, Schoenweis, Cormier, and Lohse to brand new deals totaling $11.05 million for this year alone.

Maybe I'm confused. But aren't you using the opinon of Wayne Krivsky to support your argument here while criticizing the same opinion of Wayne Krivsky to argue against the trade?

As I said, maybe I missed something but you seem to use WKs evaluation of Cormier and Lohse for your side of one argument but seem to indicate he has no clue how to evaluate the worth of pitching when it comes to Bray and Maj.

Aronchis
05-03-2007, 10:08 PM
That's a joke!

Kearns and Lee are polar opposites in terms of both talent and what they've proven as a professional.

Going into 2007 Kearns averaged 167 Total Bases per year. (C'mon, give me all the excuses. :rolleyes: ) Carlos Lee averaged 283 Total Bases per year including the last four years never being below 300 Total Bases. You can pencil him in for 300 Total Bases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He's proven he can produce. All Kearns has proven is that he'll get injured and have long slumps nearly every year. Kearns has topped 186 bases (his rookie year) once....just once,...and that was only 251 Total Bases last year.

By the time Lee was 26, Lee had averaged 251 Total Bases every year!

Kearns is not an someone you want to rely on every day as your starting outfielder, especially considering how much money he costs when he hasn't proven anything yet in his career.

I think it is called overrating your players. We do it with prospects, also with players. Kearns simply hasn't panned out as expected. Hell, Dunn isn't a
1.000+OPSing machine either we all thought he would be. We so badly want a superstar, we are making them up as they go along. Of course being a Cleveland Browns fan, you sorta get to understand and accept that delusion before long:)

cincinnati chili
05-03-2007, 10:37 PM
That's a joke!

Kearns and Lee are polar opposites in terms of both talent and what they've proven as a professional.

Going into 2007 Kearns averaged 167 Total Bases per year. (C'mon, give me all the excuses. :rolleyes: ) Carlos Lee averaged 283 Total Bases per year including the last four years never being below 300 Total Bases. You can pencil him in for 300 Total Bases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He's proven he can produce. All Kearns has proven is that he'll get injured and have long slumps nearly every year. Kearns has topped 186 bases (his rookie year) once....just once,...and that was only 251 Total Bases last year.

By the time Lee was 26, Lee had averaged 251 Total Bases every year!

Kearns is not an someone you want to rely on every day as your starting outfielder, especially considering how much money he costs when he hasn't proven anything yet in his career.

No question, Lee stayed healthier and managed to not get banished to the minors by a poor GM trying to make a point.

In terms of RATE statistics, they were and are pretty similar. Kearns is/was more of an on-base guy, Lee more of a slugging guy. But the difference isn't drastic. You have to factor in ballparks too. Mortals don't hit well in RFK.

I don't think it's a bad comp. at all, but obviously Kearns has to prove he can stay healthy.

M2
05-03-2007, 11:41 PM
That's a joke!

Kearns and Lee are polar opposites in terms of both talent and what they've proven as a professional.

Going into 2007 Kearns averaged 167 Total Bases per year. (C'mon, give me all the excuses. :rolleyes: ) Carlos Lee averaged 283 Total Bases per year including the last four years never being below 300 Total Bases. You can pencil him in for 300 Total Bases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He's proven he can produce. All Kearns has proven is that he'll get injured and have long slumps nearly every year. Kearns has topped 186 bases (his rookie year) once....just once,...and that was only 251 Total Bases last year.

By the time Lee was 26, Lee had averaged 251 Total Bases every year!

Kearns is not an someone you want to rely on every day as your starting outfielder, especially considering how much money he costs when he hasn't proven anything yet in his career.

Age 26

Carlos Lee - .264/.359/.484, 26 HR, 80 RBI, 238 TB
Austin Kearns - .264/.363/.467, 24 HR, 86 RBI, 251 TB

Yep, that's a joke. I mean what sane person would see a similarity between those two sets of numbers?

Carlos Lee is an out-of-shape ballplayer (and always has been) who just enjoyed what should be his peak production. If you think Carlos Lee is going to repeat his past four seasons for the next four seasons that's likely a sucker's bet.

True enough, Kearns hasn't had his prime yet. It's not his fault that he's four years younger than Lee. Though, in baseball terms, it makes him a better investment. I certainly recognize that Kearns' continued health is in question, but if he stays healthy he should be in for the best four seasons of his life.

So do you want the guy with a career .833 OPS heading past his prime and who's essentially a DH in the field? Or do you want the guy with the .821 career OPS headed into his prime and who brings defense to the table as well? Oh, the older guy also costs $10M more a season.

Now, I'm not saying Carlos Lee is garbage. Far from it. He's a big bat who still should be able to help a team in need of a big bat. But if you're going to sit there and shower Carlos Lee with sunshine then don't try to turn around and hand me a line that Austin Kearns is some near valueless git. And if you don't know better, you should.

Johnny Footstool
05-03-2007, 11:51 PM
What evidence do we have that it was made in desperation? It may seem that way on the surface...but none of us know all the circumstances around this developing. And when we don't have all the facts, it's tough to nail down Krivsky.

I just struggle looking at the performances of these two, and LaRue for that matter....and thinking we are worse off for not having them on the roster....or thinking someone would have paid a king's ransom for them.

We've been over that a thousand times. The timing of the deal and Krivsky's own statements in the interview immediately following the trade obviously indicate the Reds were desperate for bullpen help. If you don't see that as evidence, you're just being obstinate.

RedEye
05-04-2007, 12:00 AM
We've been over that a thousand times. The timing of the deal and Krivsky's own statements in the interview immediately following the trade obviously indicate the Reds were desperate for bullpen help. If you don't see that as evidence, you're just being obstinate.

If I remember correctly, Krivsky even came out right after The Trade admitting that it was "not going to be popular" with Reds fans and that they'd think he "gave up too much."

I think that's the first time I've ever heard of a GM defensively backpedaling right after a trade during a pennant race and not even trying to defend it. It's as if K was a fantasy owner who just made a bad deal and then realized it right afterwards when it was too late.

I'm willing to forgive K for his error. It's just that I don't think forgiveness always involves forgetfulness. I will never forget The Trade for what it was: a stupid, indefensible move.

camisadelgolf
05-04-2007, 02:40 AM
Here's (http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060713&content_id=1555255&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin) what Wayne said at the time:

"I think anyone who's seen us play in the first half realizes that the bullpen has been a little bit of a soft spot on our team and I think for us to compete and get in the playoffs in the second half, we had to upgrade the bullpen," Krivsky said.

And:

"We did what we needed to do."

And:

"We've got 16 games to play before the trading deadline," Krivsky said. "I didn't want to wait around until the trade deadline. I wanted to do something now. [I knew] if we did and we addressed the bullpen, then we've got it [for] 16 games extra."

That's a guy who's talking about the here and now.

It sounds like it, but I beileved all along that those quotes were a PR move.

TRF
05-04-2007, 09:30 AM
It sounds like it, but I beileved all along that those quotes were a PR move.

What?

You mean he wasn't trying to win the division with those moves? And once he made them and they didn't work out AT ALL, he jettisoned 2/5 of the players he received while one of the remaining hasn't thrown a pitch this year, another has been optioned because he was ineffective, and not really healthy in ST, and the third is a HUGE question mark at Low A ball.

WMP alone fetched more value than 2 major league starters, and a AAA reliever and former first round pick with some upside.

Guillen fetched more.

M2 complains about the Williamson trade, but that one while a CLEAR salary dump, was also a trade for the future. But that netted 2 arms, both now in the high minors. Kearns alone should have been worth a Jon Rauch plus a minor league arm, especially to Bowden.

It wasn't a good trade in theory or practice, not because of the players traded, but because of the return. Nobody on this board was opposed to trading Kearns, Lopez or Wagner. We were just opposed to the complete dreck that came the Reds way.

princeton
05-04-2007, 09:34 AM
Missed where Ortiz and Eckstein won rings in recent years did you?.

you must have missed the facts that I called Angels' championship because of Eckstein's character, that I called Cards' failed championship runs due to lack of character, and that I called Cards' championship once they signed Eckstein. I amaze myself.

you also must have missed the fact that I called FeLo a perennial starting MIer on perennial bad teams.

Krivsky could have made FeLo into a supersub, which was always his only position on a good team, but he already had Freel, and who's more likely to help a team win-- Freel or Lopez?

I'm not defending Krivsky, who's fascinatingly inconsistent, rather I'm trying to interpret him. Personally, I'd play things much differently, but the owner would also fire me quickly.

as for the Reds owner, he hired a guy that did contracts for a small team that consistently won enough, paid a few stars but dropped the expensive tweeners, protected the farm, and prayed for postseason success by gambling on bargain vets and a run of sheer pitching luck. I'll be shocked if that's not the model.

If the Reds ever get really close, but can only get over the hump by mortgaging its future, then I'm pretty sure how they'll play it. hopefully we'll get to that point where we can find out.

Redsland
05-04-2007, 09:52 AM
Maybe I'm confused.
I'll go along with that.

You called Franklin, Schoenweis, Lohse, Cormier, and Kim "chaff." I pointed out that four of those players convinced three different general managers to ink them to new deals totaling over $11 million for this year alone. Heck, I didn't point it out, but certainly you're aware that one of those guys got a guaranteed three-year deal totaling almost $11 million all by himself.

Chaff? Outside of Kim, who I conceded, nothing could be further from the truth.

flyer85
05-04-2007, 10:01 AM
You called Franklin, Schoenweis, Lohse, Cormier, and Kim "chaff." I pointed out that four of those players convinced three different general managers to ink them to new deals totaling over $11 million for this year alone. Just shows that intelligence is not a prerequisite for the job. I think the big issue is most of these guys are really administrators at heart.

westofyou
05-04-2007, 10:40 AM
Just shows that intelligence is not a prerequisite for the job. I think the big issue is most of these guys are really administrators at heart.

Can we marginalize baseball men anymore today?

Or have we just reached a benchmark with the above statement?

westofyou
05-04-2007, 10:46 AM
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/07/14/030714fa_fact1?currentPage=1


I visited James at his office in early May. The night before, an hour’s drive to the east in Kansas City, the Sox had clawed back from a five-run deficit against the Royals and taken the lead in the top half of the ninth—only to squander it, again, in the bottom half. (Hit, walk, hit, plunk, error.) When I arrived, James, who has a salty gray beard, was pacing in his office, barefoot, with his shirt untucked, engaging in the Socratic method with an assistant, Matthew.

“What’s Chen’s best pitch? Mmmhmm. A lefty, right? Are you sure? I could swear … What about Seanez? Yes, but wouldn’t you rather have the guy who gets hurt than the guy who can’t get anybody out?”

James stopped pacing and sat down behind his desk, which is next to a small bed—for catnaps and the occasional overnighter. “We’re evaluating a couple of available pitchers”—Bruce Chen and Rudy Seanez—“to see whether they’re less offensive than the bullpen we have,” he explained. “I would say that essentially what I’m doing is trying to visualize a successful career on the end of a career that we’ve had so far.

“We don’t have anything which suggests that one of these pitchers is going to break loose in Fenway,” he continued. “However, nonetheless it is true that in every baseball season you can identify forty pitchers who were pitching ineffectively, changed teams, and started pitching effectively.” James hopes to identify the conditions that may forecast such improvement in the future, and, for this and other studies, he has compiled a database—“a massive file, which I will send to the Red Sox with my next report, which has everybody in the major leagues, how hard they throw, what pitches they throw, and certain other information about them.”

M2
05-04-2007, 11:36 AM
you must have missed the facts that I called Angels' championship because of Eckstein's character, that I called Cards' failed championship runs due to lack of character, and that I called Cards' championship once they signed Eckstein. I amaze myself.

You called the Angels during the playoffs in 2002, you were hardly an island. IIRC, Darin Erstad was another factor for you. Why that team, with all that character and with a killer bullpen, hasn't been back to the Series since, has been a topic over which you've been fumbling.

And I was saying Eckstein might be exactly what the Cardinals need at the same time you were. Of course the point is the Cardinals only got him because the Angels didn't want to pay his arbitration cost. That seems to be escaping you.


you also must have missed the fact that I called FeLo a perennial starting MIer on perennial bad teams.

You'd do better to peddle that to someone who wasn't warning FeLo wasn't going to stick at SS on the day the Reds traded for him. I was the guy bringing up the name Brandon Webb.


Krivsky could have made FeLo into a supersub, which was always his only position on a good team, but he already had Freel, and who's more likely to help a team win-- Freel or Lopez?

Hey, great red herring. I was all for trading FeLo coming off his 2005 season. Mentioned it before you did. I've got no problem with trading the guy. Failing to get a good return for him, that's the stupidity I can't get behind.


as for the Reds owner, he hired a guy that did contracts for a small team that consistently won enough, paid a few stars but dropped the expensive tweeners, protected the farm, and prayed for postseason success by gambling on bargain vets and a run of sheer pitching luck. I'll be shocked if that's not the model.

The only problem is it took 10 years for the farm to deliver the players for that model to come together. Might have won something if they hadn't released that out of shape, supposedly "nothing special" guy named David Ortiz because he was going to get paid in arbitration. As great as the Nathan/Liriano/Bonser for Pierzynski trade was for the team, note who's got a ring on his finger. I understand you need to make room for a Joe Mauer, but Pierzynski's turned out to be a great SOB to have in your foxhole.

The 2006 Tigers, 2005 White Sox, 2005 Astros, 2004 Cardinals, 2003 Marlins and 2002 Angels were positively built on arb-eligibles and guys in the 27-30 range, thick with tweeners. The 2006 Cardinals, 2004 Red Sox, 2003 Yankees and 2002 Giants were more veteran/free agent teams. Consolidate around players in their prime or buy your way to success. What I don't see is a team that's gotten to the classic with the liquidity scam. The closest you could find is the 2004 Cardinals which spent the savings on J.D. Drew and Eli Marrero masterfully, but the club still dropped lots of coin ($83M to start the season, 9th overall in MLB, with the reserves to pick up Larry Walker during the summer). As in real life, small dollar liquidity doesn't mean much.

Getting rid of guys because they're about to earn some money in their primes so you can sign Mike Stantons and trade for Jeff Conines while you cross your fingers for kids to come up from the minors and have immediate impact is baseball's version of the methadone shuffle. Years can slide by while you're in that haze.

princeton
05-04-2007, 11:44 AM
tut, such jealousy.

a team can go heavy on the arb-eligible sub-stars if they think they have more ceiling and/or are winners. But to me, it sounds like you're equating FeLo to Eckstein, Kearns to Papi. Are you? I like predictions like that. We'll see.

BTW, IIRC, I was a lone defender of Eckstein's large contract with St Louis. But I'm sure that you'll rewrite things now.

I now hand your board back to you

Chip R
05-04-2007, 12:02 PM
If they want Castro around for his influence, offer him a coaching job.


Here, here!

M2
05-04-2007, 12:09 PM
“However, nonetheless it is true that in every baseball season you can identify forty pitchers who were pitching ineffectively, changed teams, and started pitching effectively.” James hopes to identify the conditions that may forecast such improvement in the future, and, for this and other studies, he has compiled a database—“a massive file, which I will send to the Red Sox with my next report, which has everybody in the major leagues, how hard they throw, what pitches they throw, and certain other information about them.”

Mid-20s, decent K rates, major league fastball or a major gimmick like a knuckleball, track record of success in the upper minors, 200+ IP in the majors. Those would be the main commonalities. The main thing is the adjustment period. Most every pitcher has one and it can span a few seasons, especially if you bring up a kid in his early 20s.

James is right though, it's THE market to be in. These guys are ready to step forward and they don't cost much money. As I was saying before the season, the Mets didn't need to pick up big dollar free agents because they had previously picked up John Maine for Kris Benson and Oliver Perez for Xavier Nady.

M2
05-04-2007, 12:11 PM
tut, such jealousy.

a team can go heavy on the arb-eligible sub-stars if they think they have more ceiling and/or are winners. But to me, it sounds like you're equating FeLo to Eckstein, Kearns to Papi. Are you? I like predictions like that. We'll see.

BTW, IIRC, I was a lone defender of Eckstein's large contract with St Louis. But I'm sure that you'll rewrite things now.

I now hand your board back to you

Wow, you really only read your own posts, don't you? It must be a fascinating solipsism in which you live.

Red Leader
05-04-2007, 12:15 PM
I think this smilie needs to be worked into this site sometimes....

http://www.pnwriders.com/forum/images/smilies/epenis.gif

flyer85
05-04-2007, 12:22 PM
Or have we just reached a benchmark with the above statement?They do that all by themselves by the ridiculous contracts given to bad players.

As Paul Depodesta once said "Baseball has a huge inefficiency in the middle, if someone could ...".

And so the same mistake gets repeated again ... and again ... and again. But then again thats what happens with inbred management.

JaxRed
05-04-2007, 12:25 PM
:deadhorse

Eric_Davis
05-04-2007, 12:59 PM
Age 26

Carlos Lee - .264/.359/.484, 26 HR, 80 RBI, 238 TB
Austin Kearns - .264/.363/.467, 24 HR, 86 RBI, 251 TB

Yep, that's a joke. I mean what sane person would see a similarity between those two sets of numbers?

Carlos Lee is an out-of-shape ballplayer (and always has been) who just enjoyed what should be his peak production. If you think Carlos Lee is going to repeat his past four seasons for the next four seasons that's likely a sucker's bet.

True enough, Kearns hasn't had his prime yet. It's not his fault that he's four years younger than Lee. Though, in baseball terms, it makes him a better investment. I certainly recognize that Kearns' continued health is in question, but if he stays healthy he should be in for the best four seasons of his life.

So do you want the guy with a career .833 OPS heading past his prime and who's essentially a DH in the field? Or do you want the guy with the .821 career OPS headed into his prime and who brings defense to the table as well? Oh, the older guy also costs $10M more a season.

Now, I'm not saying Carlos Lee is garbage. Far from it. He's a big bat who still should be able to help a team in need of a big bat. But if you're going to sit there and shower Carlos Lee with sunshine then don't try to turn around and hand me a line that Austin Kearns is some near valueless git. And if you don't know better, you should.

You're pulling a single year out of statistics to try to prove a point why Lee brought back more in a trade than Kearns. That's what makes no sense.

15fan
05-04-2007, 01:11 PM
I think this smilie needs to be worked into this site sometimes....

http://www.pnwriders.com/forum/images/smilies/epenis.gif

Just be careful that it doesn't get too close to this one: :mooner:

M2
05-04-2007, 01:19 PM
You're pulling a single year out of statistics to try to prove a point why Lee brought back more in a trade than Kearns. That's what makes no sense.

No, I'm comparing Austin Kearns to Carlos Lee through age 26. Lee was healthier and had a SLG edge, Kearns was better in the field with an OB edge. You've looked at the numbers so I'm not telling you anything you don't know there and stop acting like the similarities don't run far deeper.

If you don't think Kearns will be able to get out on the field enough that's one thing, but the difference in what they've produced on the percentages is a hair splitting exercise. Now factor in that Lee's headed into what should be his decline while Kearns is headed into what should be his prime. Are you paying the guy for the next four years or the last four years? Are you telling me that you don't think a healthy Austin Kearns can deliver an .850ish OPS (or the equivalent of it for a guy playing in RFK) in his prime? Because that's Carlos Lee-level production and teams seem to think that's pretty valuable.

REDREAD
05-04-2007, 01:24 PM
That's a joke!

Kearns and Lee are polar opposites in terms of both talent and what they've proven as a professional.

Going into 2007 Kearns averaged 167 Total Bases per year. (C'mon, give me all the excuses. :rolleyes: ) Carlos Lee averaged 283 Total Bases per year including the last four years never being below 300 Total Bases. You can pencil him in for 300 Total Bases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He's proven he can produce. All Kearns has proven is that he'll get injured and have long slumps nearly every year. Kearns has topped 186 bases (his rookie year) once....just once,...and that was only 251 Total Bases last year.

By the time Lee was 26, Lee had averaged 251 Total Bases every year!

Kearns is not an someone you want to rely on every day as your starting outfielder, especially considering how much money he costs when he hasn't proven anything yet in his career.

Total bases is not the best stat to judge a player. Sure, Lee has been healthier than Kearns throughout his career. That's an advantage.

When Lee was 26/27, the best OPS year he had was 843.. Kearns best has been 907. Sure Kearns may not reach that level again. I admit that. But Kearns career OPS is 821. Lee's is 834, and Kearns has his peak years ahead of him.. Sure, it's not a given that Kearns will improve in his peak years.

The two players are closer than you think. I said in my post that Kearns isn't quite to the level of Lee, but when you factor in his younger age and cheaper salary, getting maybe 85% (guess) of Lee's production from Kearns is quite attractive.

camisadelgolf
05-04-2007, 04:06 PM
What?

You mean he wasn't trying to win the division with those moves? And once he made them and they didn't work out AT ALL, he jettisoned 2/5 of the players he received while one of the remaining hasn't thrown a pitch this year, another has been optioned because he was ineffective, and not really healthy in ST, and the third is a HUGE question mark at Low A ball.

WMP alone fetched more value than 2 major league starters, and a AAA reliever and former first round pick with some upside.

Guillen fetched more.

M2 complains about the Williamson trade, but that one while a CLEAR salary dump, was also a trade for the future. But that netted 2 arms, both now in the high minors. Kearns alone should have been worth a Jon Rauch plus a minor league arm, especially to Bowden.

It wasn't a good trade in theory or practice, not because of the players traded, but because of the return. Nobody on this board was opposed to trading Kearns, Lopez or Wagner. We were just opposed to the complete dreck that came the Reds way.

Of course he was trying to win the division, but it was one of those trades that was supposed to help in the short-term and long-term. Obviously, the short-term end of it didn't work out, but the long-term stuff is already working out.

Is WMP supposed to be Wily Mo Pena? The reason I ask is because he's been traded twice--once for Drew Henson and Michael Coleman and the other for Bronson Arroyo and cash.

Ltlabner
05-04-2007, 04:21 PM
I think this smilie needs to be worked into this site sometimes....

http://www.pnwriders.com/forum/images/smilies/epenis.gif

Greatest.post.ever.

flyer85
05-04-2007, 04:24 PM
Greatest.post.ever.around here that really wouldn't do. You would need one that says "Mine is bigger than yours".

TRF
05-04-2007, 05:06 PM
Of course he was trying to win the division, but it was one of those trades that was supposed to help in the short-term and long-term. Obviously, the short-term end of it didn't work out, but the long-term stuff is already working out.

Is WMP supposed to be Wily Mo Pena? The reason I ask is because he's been traded twice--once for Drew Henson and Michael Coleman and the other for Bronson Arroyo and cash.

Yes. WMP means Wily Mo. One guy for the Reds #2 starter. And I was against that trade, but it was the Reds 4th, possibly 5th OF for a guy that went right in to the rotation. The expectation of Arroyo was a 4.00ish ERA. Maybe he eats innings. He's obviously been much more, but had he just been that, his value was greater than EVERY SINGLE PLAYER ACQUIRED IN THE TRADE!

And what long term stuff is working out? the pen sucks. Bray has yet to throw a pitch. Thompson is fantastic, but he's in the Midwest league, and he's already had shoulder surgery.

blech.

camisadelgolf
05-05-2007, 04:49 AM
Yes. WMP means Wily Mo. One guy for the Reds #2 starter. And I was against that trade, but it was the Reds 4th, possibly 5th OF for a guy that went right in to the rotation. The expectation of Arroyo was a 4.00ish ERA. Maybe he eats innings. He's obviously been much more, but had he just been that, his value was greater than EVERY SINGLE PLAYER ACQUIRED IN THE TRADE!

And what long term stuff is working out? the pen sucks. Bray has yet to throw a pitch. Thompson is fantastic, but he's in the Midwest league, and he's already had shoulder surgery.

blech.

I think it's apples and oranges. Don't get me wrong--I see the similarities. For example, they are both outfielders who have yet to fulfill the great promise they have displayed over the past few years. But if you look at the ceilings of Kearns and Pena, Pena's is much higher. Arroyo was pretty much a sixth starter in Boston at the time, so he was as expendable as Pena (who, again, had a much higher ceiling). Also, Pena was traded for one player and cash. The Trade consisted of the Reds giving up three players for five. So again, it's apples and oranges.

As far as how the long term stuff is working out, the Reds have Gonzalez and Hamilton, who are arguably better players than Lopez and Kearns. Also, over the next three years, Gonzalez and Hamilton will earn less than half of what Kearns and Lopez will. If the Reds keep Kearns, there's no room for Hamilton. If they keep Lopez, they have a traffic cone for a shortstop. That's also not to mention how strapped for cash they could be when Harang's and Arroyo's extensions kick in.

If you want to say it was a bad trade because it didn't get the Reds to the playoffs last year, you're right. If you want to say it was a bad trade because the Reds could've gotten more for Kearns and Lopez, you're right. But if you want to factor everything, including roster flexibility, the decrease in salaries, the improved defense, etc., I'm going to say this was a good trade.

Redhook
05-05-2007, 08:20 AM
If you want to say it was a bad trade because it didn't get the Reds to the playoffs last year, you're right.

I do.


If you want to say it was a bad trade because the Reds could've gotten more for Kearns and Lopez, you're right.

I do.


But if you want to factor everything, including roster flexibility, the decrease in salaries, the improved defense, etc., I'm going to say this was a good trade.

No. So, we didn't make the playoffs last year, which, was supposed to be the #1 goal of the trade. We didn't get nearly the return we were supposed to get. And, in terms of what we received for Kearns and Lopez, we're most likely not going to make the playoffs in the near future because of Maj and Bray. Yet somehow, with everything factoring in including Krivsky stumbling upon Hamilton (who I love watching btw), it was still a good trade in your mind? Interesting.

Kc61
05-05-2007, 08:30 AM
Meanwhile, with the current Reds bullpen I can't wait for Majewski and Bray to join the pitching staff. So maybe we should resume this thread a few months from now.

GAC
05-05-2007, 08:43 AM
How many times (and threads), as well as database space, are we going to waste continually and forever reassessing this trade?

You'd think it was the Frank Robinson trade all over again.

And yet nothing new, whenever it's brought up, is ever added or learned.

Geez! :rolleyes:

Kearn's contract....

2007 — 3.5M
2008 — 5M
2009 — 8M
2010 — 10M (club option) vs 1M (buyout)

camisadelgolf
05-05-2007, 08:45 AM
No. So, we didn't make the playoffs last year, which, was supposed to be the #1 goal of the trade. We didn't get nearly the return we were supposed to get. And, in terms of what we received for Kearns and Lopez, we're most likely not going to make the playoffs in the near future because of Maj and Bray. Yet somehow, with everything factoring in including Krivsky stumbling upon Hamilton (who I love watching btw), it was still a good trade in your mind? Interesting.

If Kearns and Lopez were on the team right now instead of Hamilton and Gonzalez, the Reds would be worse. What I'm saying is that, although the trade was said it would help the Reds get to the playoffs last year, the other motive was to clear roster space and salary for more effective players. In that sense, half of the trade has been a success.

As for Majewski and Bray, they are both young and developing. Majewski was damaged goods, and only time will tell how that part of the trade plays out. Bray has been injured this year, but he will be an effective pitcher for the Reds at some point. Also, Oil Can Thompson is a complete question mark at the moment, but things are looking good.

RedEye
05-06-2007, 11:23 PM
If Kearns and Lopez were on the team right now instead of Hamilton and Gonzalez, the Reds would be worse. What I'm saying is that, although the trade was said it would help the Reds get to the playoffs last year, the other motive was to clear roster space and salary for more effective players. In that sense, half of the trade has been a success.


The motive for a trade should always be to get value in return. You can clear roster space whenever you want to. Or make a better trade later. I'm so tired of this argument... and of posting my argument too... but I just have to keep doing it because I find this "roster clearing and salary saving" perspective so completely infuriating.

Eric_Davis
05-06-2007, 11:39 PM
I'm sorry guys, but being able to get onto the field isn't just a coincidence or luck...it's who you are as a ballplayer and Kearns has proven he can't stay on the field.

While OPS's were similar to age 26, that's only relevant if they played the same number of innings.

Kearns and Lee were at opposite ends of the spectrum through age 26...and the Total Bases statistic proves it. To deny this is to ignore the facts and the obvious.

Krivsky has proven he's been able to get value in trades and can identify talent where others have failed...(Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton), and isn't it amazing what Kearns was able to generate, even with Lopez added to the deal, in value?

You just have to face the fact that Kearns didn't have much value as a trade commodity due mainly to the fact that he couldn't move runners around the bases on a consistent basis. ....Total Bases removes the walk from the equation as a single can score a player from 1st to 3rd or 1st to home or 2nd to home or 3rd to home, or 1st to anywhere along with an error can occur to cause more runners to advance. What does a walk do? Practically nothing.

Patrick Bateman
05-06-2007, 11:49 PM
You just have to face the fact that Kearns didn't have much value as a trade commodity due mainly to the fact that he couldn't move runners around the bases on a consistent basis.

This is assuming that Krivsky got the best deal available for Kearns/Lopez. Knowing that Krivsky thought very highly of Majewski (and went as far to say that he had the make-up and ability to close in the big leagues) leads me to speculate that this was far from the best offer. Krivsky clearly thought he was getting a far better player in Majewski, and possibly passed up a better player.


....Total Bases removes the walk from the equation as a single can score a player from 1st to 3rd or 1st to home or 2nd to home or 3rd to home, or 1st to anywhere along with an error can occur to cause more runners to advance. What does a walk do? Practically nothing.

As for this argument, walks are what differentiate players like Pedro Feliz from being effective players.

Eric_Davis
05-07-2007, 12:33 AM
Let's suppose that Kearns has just had bad fate and that his injuries of the past won't effect what happens to him in the future, though these injuries tend to take effect when a player reaches his 30's.

Given that Kearns and Lee had similar OPS' at age 26, it's a possibility that Kearns could achieve a season or two where he gets over 300 Total Bases (this year and next the most likely). But, as a General Manager, I wouldn't want to take the chance that he changes his stripes and avoids the injury bug for the next few years.

And, it could be that Kearns' value over the next three years is so great that he tips the scale heavily in the favor of Washington in this trade. There's no doubting Kearns potential. He finally showed it last year for the first time since his rookie year.

Then Krivsky gets a bad grade in this trade, and that's OK. If you can do well in 2/3rd's of your trades, your doing really good.

All said, you've got to try to get pitching if you want to win a World Series. It's a lot easier to get good outfielders than good pitchers.

I'll agree that there's enough similarities between Lee and Kearns at age 26 that Kearns can end up having several 300+ Total Bases seasons as Lee ended up putting together.

RedEye
05-07-2007, 01:01 AM
All said, you've got to try to get pitching if you want to win a World Series. It's a lot easier to get good outfielders than good pitchers.


Maybe. But globally speaking it's a lot easier to get good relief pitchers than it is to get good starting pitchers. And yet, Wayne keeps shooting himself in the foot, paying top dollar for relievers, both in trades and in free agency.

I'd be a lot happier if we'd taken the Cleveland trade for Westbrook instead. Then I'd feel like we got somewhat equal value for Kearns.

Eric_Davis
05-07-2007, 01:05 AM
Maybe. But globally speaking it's a lot easier to get good relief pitchers than it is to get good starting pitchers. And yet, Wayne keeps shooting himself in the foot, paying top dollar for relievers, both in trades and in free agency.

I'd be a lot happier if we'd taken the Cleveland trade for Westbrook instead. Then I'd feel like we got somewhat equal value for Kearns.

I was totally unaware of that. What were the specifics? What is the prevailing opinion on why it wasn't completed?

RedEye
05-07-2007, 01:10 AM
I was totally unaware of that. What were the specifics? What is the prevailing opinion on why it wasn't completed?

I don't remember now, but I do know that there was a deal on the table involving Kearns for Westbrook. I read about it here at RedsZone, and it was from a reputable source. I can't recall why it didn't go through -- it could have been nixed by Cleveland. In any case, it gives an idea of what types of players Kearns could have been traded for at other times.

Well.. that wasn't much help. Anyone else got the specifics?

Eric_Davis
05-07-2007, 01:15 AM
Knowing that Krivsky thought very highly of Majewski (and went as far to say that he had the make-up and ability to close in the big leagues) leads me to speculate that this was far from the best offer. Krivsky clearly thought he was getting a far better player in Majewski, and possibly passed up a better player.
.

I hear a lot through quotes from the Enquirer and other places through here that Krivsky thought Majewski was a big part of the trade. I personally never thought he was anything more than an average reliever.

Now that injuries have taken their toll for nearly a year into this trade Krivsky has nothing to show for this trade other than open roster spots filled by Hamilton and Alex Gonzalez and a better defense.

Bray needs to get it going and have a great year.

Eric_Davis
05-07-2007, 01:16 AM
I don't remember now, but I do know that there was a deal on the table involving Kearns for Westbrook. I read about it here at RedsZone, and it was from a reputable source. I can't recall why it didn't go through -- it could have been nixed by Cleveland. In any case, it gives an idea of what types of players Kearns could have been traded for at other times.

Well.. that wasn't much help. Anyone else got the specifics?

I know Westbrook had that great rookie season, then struggled after that. Probably would have been a good time to acquire him.

RedEye
05-07-2007, 01:23 AM
Here are a couple of references to the Kearns-Westbrook rumor that a google search turned up. Seems the rumor occurred during those wild Brad Kullman days... so it was well before WK.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2006/01/possible_kearns.html

http://redlegnation.com/2006/01/26/kearns-staying-put/

Not sure how "reputable" these sources actually are, but there certainly was a lot of talk about it. In any case, Kearns's value at one point was equal to a ML average SP. I have to believe that it hadn't gone down that much by the time of The Trade, especially since he was in the middle of a career year in July of 2006. If anything, his stock would have been higher by that point, right?

Eric_Davis
05-07-2007, 01:45 AM
Thank God we didn't get Jeff Weaver like the mlbtraderumors suggested, though I did like the article. I think Westbrook would have been great. To add Westbrook right now to this team would be great. But, he'd be a free-agent after this year and would be in demand of $9M+ per year more than likely beginning in 2008. It's amazing how in just one year, those names (Beckett, Weaver, Clement, Loaiza, Penny) can have so many different opinions by now.

It's interesting how the mlbtraderumors addressed the horrendous REDS defense when dissuaging the Westbrook trade, and then the REDS got better by subtraction by getting rid of Lopez, and then five months later obtaining his opposite in Gonzalez, though Gonzo's been nothing but stellar offensively so far this year.

Eric_Davis
05-07-2007, 01:49 AM
I would have taken Westbrook back then, but not Clement.

Seriously, one year ago I thought more of Westbrook than of Kearns and more of Kearns than of Clement...didn't think much at all about Clement.

camisadelgolf
05-07-2007, 03:24 AM
The motive for a trade should always be to get value in return. You can clear roster space whenever you want to. Or make a better trade later. I'm so tired of this argument... and of posting my argument too... but I just have to keep doing it because I find this "roster clearing and salary saving" perspective so completely infuriating.

Of course the motive should be to get value. In that case, it hasn't worked as well as it should have. But when you factor all the other benefits from the trade, overall, this was a good trade for the Reds. It just wasn't as good as it should have been.

Johnny Footstool
05-07-2007, 06:23 AM
Of course the motive should be to get value. In that case, it hasn't worked as well as it should have. But when you factor all the other benefits from the trade, overall, this was a good trade for the Reds. It just wasn't as good as it should have been.

When you cherry-pick positive events and attribute them to the trade, it doesn't look so bad.

Of course, one could probably deconstruct the Frank Robinson trade in a similar manner and convince oneself it wasn't so bad, either.

VR
05-07-2007, 11:26 AM
We are talking about Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, yes?

registerthis
05-07-2007, 11:52 AM
Nine pages into this thread, and I'm still convinced that Bray, Majewski, Clayton, Harris and Thompson was a pitiful return on this deal.

Sorry, no amount of pushing square pegs into round holes is going to make me come around on this deal. It was a stinker, pure and simple. Time to move on.

KronoRed
05-07-2007, 12:26 PM
Of course, one could probably deconstruct the Frank Robinson trade in a similar manner and convince oneself it wasn't so bad, either.

"We were able to afford to pay (insert big red machine player name)"

;)

TRF
05-07-2007, 01:02 PM
With the roster flexibility in the OF after the Robinson trade, the Reds were later able to promote Eric Davis.

20 years later, but still...

pedro
05-07-2007, 01:54 PM
Funny how a lot of folks act like Lopez was Frank Robinson.

TRF
05-07-2007, 02:27 PM
I swear I'm going to stick this in my sig.

It was never about who was traded. It was always about the return.

pedro
05-07-2007, 02:34 PM
I swear I'm going to stick this in my sig.

It was never about who was traded. It was always about the return.


The return is tied to who was traded.

Lopez was/is a highly flawed player without a the defensive skills to play middle infield and without the stick to play a corner position.

membengal
05-07-2007, 02:35 PM
Exactly TRF. Attempts to turn the focus back to Lopez/Kearns and their subsequent production (or lack thereof) miss the point. My criticism always was with what was received for them. Always will be.

It was what it was and is what it is.

Ravenlord
05-07-2007, 02:36 PM
in 20 years, this deal will make for a very interesting chapter in a book about Reds trades in franchise history.

VR
05-07-2007, 02:41 PM
Funny how a lot of folks act like Lopez was Frank Robinson.


He is #320 in the majors for OPS after all.

westofyou
05-07-2007, 02:44 PM
Funny how a lot of folks act like Lopez was Frank Robinson.

One thing's for sure Gary Majewski is certainly playing the part of Jack Baldschun in that deal.

Ltlabner
05-07-2007, 02:56 PM
Exactly TRF. Attempts to turn the focus back to Lopez/Kearns and their subsequent production (or lack thereof) miss the point. My criticism always was with what was received for them. Always will be.

It was what it was and is what it is.

But the return will depend on the players traded. Any GM with an ounce of negotiating skills is going to point out Lopez 15 or so errors and struggles at the plate (and that he'd had one whole good year in his short carear). I just don't think we got hosed on the return for Lopez because I don't believe his draw to be that big. Doesn't matter if the trade was midseason, offseason or out of season.

I've looked at the trade as the return for Kearns was Bray and Majic (not enough) and the return for Lopez was Thompson and Harris (about right). The return for Wagner was Clayton (yawn). That's not the 'official' breakdown on the return, but how I tend to look at it.

REDREAD
05-07-2007, 03:01 PM
I'm sorry guys, but being able to get onto the field isn't just a coincidence or luck...it's who you are as a ballplayer and Kearns has proven he can't stay on the field.


I concede that the ability to stay healthy is an asset in a ballplayer. Ironically, Eric Davis was an example of a guy whose frequent injuries hurt what he was able to contribute through his career.

However, we have to look at what type of injuires Kearns had. The big ones I remember were that wierd hand thing and Ray King.. I am going to guess the hand thing was a quirk that is now fixed. The Ray King thing was a freak accident, but I do admit that he never seemed to fully recover from that. I agree that it's something to be taken in consideration when looking at his career numbers.

There's a way to list numbers that show Kearns and Lee are similiar (averages). By pure counting stats, like total bases, Lee will come out ahead because of better health. If a GM thinks Kearns will have trouble continuing to stay healthy, then that's a factor, I agree.

Still, Kearns was worth a lot more than Maj. That was the initial trade, Kearns for Maj. It was later expanded to include Lopez and Bray and the minor leaguers.

TRF
05-07-2007, 03:03 PM
The return is tied to who was traded.

Lopez was/is a highly flawed player without a the defensive skills to play middle infield and without the stick to play a corner position.

I suppose that's true to a point. So how's Kearns doing? 10th in OPS in all MLB for RF.

The return on this trade has to this point been a negative value. Lopez returns to 2B tonight. If he returns to being the player he was last year on offense... pheh. Lopez will be fine at 2B. He'll steal 30+ bases, and have about a .350-.360 OBP. RFK will suck the life out of his power.

And in the meantime, Bray is what? at extended ST? Maj is trying to lower his ERA at Louisville.

At the time of the trade, both players were performing well. The Reds got squat for two starters and a AAA reliever with a high ceiling selected by the GM Krivsky was trading with.

Krivsky went to a gunfight with a picture of a knife. I hope he learns from the experience.

REDREAD
05-07-2007, 03:04 PM
I was totally unaware of that. What were the specifics? What is the prevailing opinion on why it wasn't completed?

It was on the table several times in the DanO era, for sure. I can't remember if it was still available last spring or not, but the word was that Cleveland was shopping Westbrooke last spring. Since they had made that offer before, it's at least plausible it could've happened.

In any event, it's one gauge of what could have been.

REDREAD
05-07-2007, 03:06 PM
I hear a lot through quotes from the Enquirer and other places through here that Krivsky thought Majewski was a big part of the trade. I personally never thought he was anything more than an average reliever.
.

Maj was Wayne's main target. It was reported in the press that the original deal was Maj for Kearns.. Both GMs then began to expand the deal.

Wayne also said that Maj was a solid set up man and potential closer. Wayne ignored Maj's injury history and generally did a poor job evaluating his talent.

REDREAD
05-07-2007, 03:09 PM
Thank God we didn't get Jeff Weaver like the mlbtraderumors suggested, though I did like the article. I think Westbrook would have been great. To add Westbrook right now to this team would be great. But, he'd be a free-agent after this year and would be in demand of $9M+ per year more than likely beginning in 2008.

I believe Cleveland signed Westbrook to an extension.

Here it is: 3 years, but money isn't mentioned. One would think the Reds might've had a good chance extending him as well.

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/content/printer_friendly/cle/y2007/m04/d13/c1896015.jsp

Ravenlord
05-07-2007, 03:13 PM
Wayne ignored Maj's injury history and generally did a poor job evaluating his talent.

what injury history?

1999- 80 IP
2000- 171.2 IP
2001- 118 IP (conversion to RP)
2002- 74.2 IP
2003- 72.2 IP
2004- 78-2 IP (21 in the majors)
2005- 92.1 IP
2006- 74 IP

i don't think it's possible for an injured reliever to go 70+ innings consistantly. he was injured, and that's why Bowden was willing to deal him.

Roy Tucker
05-07-2007, 04:25 PM
One thing's for sure Gary Majewski is certainly playing the part of Jack Baldschun in that deal.

Was there a Dick Simpson in there anywhere?

If anything good comes out of the trade (scorched earth or whatever), I'd call it unintended consequences.

registerthis
05-07-2007, 04:28 PM
Krivsky went to a gunfight with a picture of a knife. I hope he learns from the experience.

:laugh:

The_jbh
05-07-2007, 05:12 PM
why do we keep doing this to ourselves? it like ripping open a wound after it already scarred over

redsmetz
05-07-2007, 05:21 PM
what injury history?

1999- 80 IP
2000- 171.2 IP
2001- 118 IP (conversion to RP)
2002- 74.2 IP
2003- 72.2 IP
2004- 78-2 IP (21 in the majors)
2005- 92.1 IP
2006- 74 IP

i don't think it's possible for an injured reliever to go 70+ innings consistantly. he was injured, and that's why Bowden was willing to deal him.

There's those nasty facts getting in the way of an RZ legend. Sort of like Jerry Narron hates Eddie Encarnacion....

BRM
05-07-2007, 05:22 PM
There's those nasty facts getting in the way of an RZ legend. Sort of like Jerry Narron hates Eddie Encarnacion....

Well, there was "history" of him being injured earlier in the 2006 season. Maybe that's what REDREAD was referring to?

KronoRed
05-07-2007, 05:40 PM
why do we keep doing this to ourselves? it like ripping open a wound after it already scarred over

We like pain?

remdog
05-07-2007, 11:32 PM
There's those nasty facts getting in the way of an RZ legend. Sort of like Jerry Narron hates Eddie Encarnacion....

I took Redread to mean the injury in '06. You know, the one that Wayne forgot to do due diligence on. :eek:

Rem

camisadelgolf
05-08-2007, 02:38 AM
Yeah, I'm sure Krivsky and all his people just forgot about it.

It was a bad trade because the return the Reds should have received was lower than it should have been.

It was a good trade because it helped the team be what it is today (which is an improvement over the beginning of last year).

Many of you will be delighted to know that I'm officially finished with talking about this topic on RedsZone forever.

Eric_Davis
05-08-2007, 03:41 AM
the one that Wayne forgot to do due diligence on.

Rem

It can be painful when you forget to do due. :eek:

Johnny Footstool
05-08-2007, 06:08 AM
"We were able to afford to pay (insert big red machine player name)"

;)

"If Frank Robinson were still on the team, the Reds wouldn't have been able to give Lee May enough playing time to build his trade value, and the Astros never would have given up Joe Morgan in exchange for him."

RedEye
05-08-2007, 12:35 PM
why do we keep doing this to ourselves? it like ripping open a wound after it already scarred over

Because in order for it to heal right, we need people to accept it for what it was: a god awful trade. You know, acceptance is one of those crucial steps on the way to recovery. Many of our dear members, it seems, are still at the denial stage--and working hard to maintain it.

WVRedsFan
05-08-2007, 12:59 PM
Because in order for it to heal right, we need people to accept it for what it was: a god awful trade. You know, acceptance is one of those crucial steps on the way to recovery. Many of our dear members, it seems, are still at the denial stage--and working hard to maintain it.

Very true. The world is filled with people who tend to look at bad things and ignore them because the establishment made the decision. Kind of like, "they must know more than us because they are in charge". Trouble is, if it had been that way in 1776, we'd still be subjects of the Queen.

It was not only a horrible trade, but a total train wreck, regardless of how Lopez and Kearns play out. I've predicted all along that I expect nothing from Mejewski and next to nothing from Bray, and I still stand by that. If one of them pans out, it was still a bad trade and if both pan it, it was still a bad trade. Admitting it will make it go away (and idiots like me can quit writing about it).

KronoRed
05-08-2007, 01:06 PM
"If Frank Robinson were still on the team, the Reds wouldn't have been able to give Lee May enough playing time to build his trade value, and the Astros never would have given up Joe Morgan in exchange for him."

Well done, if only RZ had been around :D

flyer85
05-08-2007, 01:06 PM
bad trade, make the best of it, learn from it and keep moving forward. That's the best one can do.

M2
05-10-2007, 01:42 AM
It was a good trade because it helped the team be what it is today (which is an improvement over the beginning of last year).

Many of you will be delighted to know that I'm officially finished with talking about this topic on RedsZone forever.

Well, if you actually believe that first statement (which is provably false), then your second statement makes a lot of sense. No reason to go puncturing that soap bubble.


"If Frank Robinson were still on the team, the Reds wouldn't have been able to give Lee May enough playing time to build his trade value, and the Astros never would have given up Joe Morgan in exchange for him."

That's sheer brilliance.


Because in order for it to heal right, we need people to accept it for what it was: a god awful trade. You know, acceptance is one of those crucial steps on the way to recovery. Many of our dear members, it seems, are still at the denial stage--and working hard to maintain it.

Yep. It's crazy stuff.

Eric_Davis
07-30-2008, 09:47 PM
That's a joke!

Kearns and Lee are polar opposites in terms of both talent and what they've proven as a professional.

Going into 2007 Kearns averaged 167 Total Bases per year. (C'mon, give me all the excuses. :rolleyes: ) Carlos Lee averaged 283 Total Bases per year including the last four years never being below 300 Total Bases. You can pencil him in for 300 Total Bases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. He's proven he can produce. All Kearns has proven is that he'll get injured and have long slumps nearly every year. Kearns has topped 186 bases (his rookie year) once....just once,...and that was only 251 Total Bases last year.

By the time Lee was 26, Lee had averaged 251 Total Bases every year!

Kearns is not an someone you want to rely on every day as your starting outfielder, especially considering how much money he costs when he hasn't proven anything yet in his career.

When 9 out of 10 posters gang up on you on a thread when you were right all along, sometimes you just have to wait for the results a year or two down the road in order to put things in perspective. I just wish more people would realize that their favorite team's own players are never as good as they think they are.

In all fairness to M2, he was one of only 2 or 3 people out of the 500+ that view and post here to accurately show the overall value of "the trade", accurately stating that Thompson had more value in the trade than either Majewski or even Bray and that Kearns and Lopez simply didn't command much in return for the reasons that have occurred since the trade.

Nobody's perfect. Carlos Lee had over 330 Total Bases in 2006 and 2007 and is heading his way there in 2008, too, while Kearns is an afterthought on a bad team for the reasons that were stated at the time of the trade...he's chronically injured, call it anything you want.

M2
07-30-2008, 10:04 PM
Kearns is a fascinating specimen. He can play good defense and loaf at the same time. I think Ray King broke his heart in 2003.

Ravenlord
07-31-2008, 01:00 AM
Kearns is a fascinating specimen. He can play good defense and loaf at the same time. I think Ray King broke his heart in 2003.

or maybe he merely plays to his team's expectations for themselves?

Topcat
07-31-2008, 06:12 AM
Simply put , the deal was the right thing to do.