PDA

View Full Version : Reassessing "Reassessing the Kearns Trade"



Pages : [1] 2

The Snow Chief
05-07-2007, 10:04 AM
Hello all. This is my first post. I'm a long time Reds fan who picked up this site when I read the responses to my friend's blog post "Reassessing the Kearns Trade." I am Craig's co-worker who generated the idea for the article. Because I am new here and unable to post a reply on the Old Red Guard, I thought I would post my thoughts on the responses to the blog in this thread. Thanks for reading and I look forward to being part of this online community.

REASSESSING "REASSESSING THE KEARNS TRADE"

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" - V.I. Lenin

As the Reds fan who inspired the Shyster's latest column, "Reassessing The Kearns Trade," I feel a good deal of responsibility for some of the critical remarks the Shyster has taken on baseballthinkfactory and redszone. The article has generated over 130 posts on the old read guard as I am writing this response. Generally speaking, those who still disagree with the trade will admit that the Reds have since improved with Hamilton and Gonzalez but raise two arguments on why the trade was nevertheless a mistake: (1) the Reds should have gotten more value for those players; and (2) the trade failed to acheive its stated purpose, which was to make the team better in 2006.

As to the first argument, it can only be debated with conjecture. The Reds gave up an average hitting NL right fielder with good defensive skills. They gave up an error-prone shortstop with a decent bat. It is clear that both players, arbitration eligible with free agency on the horizon, were getting expensive relative to their production. It is also clear that Wayne Krivsky wanted to go in a different long-term direction. Who knows what type of return Krivsky was offered for these players. My sense is that it was much less than Reds fans expect. Teams can go out and get players with similar production for perhaps a bit more money in free agency and not have to give up any players in return, even if those players are unproven prospects or major league rookies. It's very similar to my mentality when I am trading in a car, holding a garage sale, or selling my junk on ebay - I am consistently dissappointed in the selling price. Human beings tend to over-value their own property relative to what is offered on the free and open market. I think that goes for fans of sports teams as well.

While the first argument may be worthy of debate, the second argument is where I was most concerned. I read posts pointing out that the Reds were 45-44 before the trade and 35-38 after it. As one poster on the old red guard put it: "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." Another poster pointed out how the Reds team batting average and runs per game dropped after the trade.

I began to worry. Had I been wrong? Had I let the Shyster down? Had the loss of Kearns and Lopez's bats really caused my Reds to miss out on that playoff spot for which they fell 3.5 games short. I decided to investigate by checking the stats. My conclusion is that many Reds fans have fallen for (or purposefully refused to see through) the fallacy that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The Andy Griffith Show went off the air on April 1, 1968. Within the next couple months, great Americans Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assasignated. I suppose one could argue that without the Andy Griffith Show, Americans lost their sense of civility and family values and that was the cause of these senseless tragedies. However, my gut tells me that there were other causal factors in play and the Andy Griffith Show-1968 assasignations was merely a spurious correlation.

Like the above example, after looking at the statistics, I became convinced that while there was a drop in run production and wins during the post-trade 2006 Reds season, that decline had very little to do with the absence of Kearns and Lopez. Rather, it is almost exclusively attributable to the horrendous September slumps of the other six starters in the Reds lineup.

Trade bashers ignore that the Reds improved their record from 45-44 at the trade on July 14th to 67-61 by August 24th. In so doing, they gained five games on their pre-trade record and were in a virtual first place deadlock with the Cardinals (who were 66-60 on August 24th). After August 24th, the wheels fell off. The Reds went 13-21 and finished 3.5 games behind the Cardinals for the NL Central title. The reasons for this decline can almost exclusively be explained by the September batting averages of the Reds' other six starting position players:

Adam Dunn: .157
Ken Griffy, Jr.: .071
Edwin Encarnacion: .214
Brandon Phillips: .149
Scott Hatteburg: .206
David Ross: .185

Given that team-wide futility, Alex Rodriquez and Alphonso Soriano could not have made the Reds winners in September, 2006, much less Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez. Royce Clayton was bench for most of September (going .206 in only 34 at bats). Meanwhile, Rich Aurillia, who ended up replacing Clayton at short for most of the games in September, hit a tidy .344 in September with 90 at bats. Austin Kearns was replaced by a platoon of Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia. While Freel struggled along with the rest of the team (a .206 September batting average with 53 at bats), Chris Denorfia hit .352 in September in 54 at bats. The Reds got equal or better offensive production during their decline in September 2006 from the Kearns and Lopez replacements. The problem was everyone else.

I wasn't the biggest trade supporter at the time. But I've come to realize that it probably resulted in a net benefit for the Reds organization and did not cost the Reds a 2006 run at glory. I think that some were so vehemently against the trade that, in an attempt to prove they were right, they have endorsed bogus arguments such as the trade cost the 2006 Reds a playoff spot. That sentiment has been echoed so many times that even though clearly wrong, it has been generally accepted as the truth.

I don't think every move Wayne Krivsky has made has been correct. I'm still scratching my head at the Rheal Cormier acquisition. I am frustrated that the Reds have not gone out and gotten a legitimate closer. However, from the top down, the Reds organization was one of the poorest run MLB systems in the 21st Century prior to Krivsky's arrival. If one looks realistically at the Reds roster prior to spring training 2006 (when Krivsky took over), I don't see how one can contend that the Reds have not improved in all facets except the bullpen. Arroyo is pitching brilliantly, Lohse has started the season well, Gonzalez is an upgrade at short, Phillips is an upgrade at second, and Hamilton has been an upgrade from the beloved Austin Kearns. The bullpen is a disaster, but Rome was not built in a day. I'm excited about the long term signings of Arroyo and Harang, the prospect of Homer Bailey being in the rotation, and the nucleas of young players in who could shine over the next 3-4 seasons (Hamilton, Phillips, Encarnacion, Joey Votto, and Jay Bruce). Reds fans should give Wayne Krivsky a little patience in turning around the train wreck he inherited.

In the meantime, we can debate whether Krivsky got enough in return for Lopez and Kearns. However, don't fall victim to the notions that the Reds have downgraded at those positions long-term or that the trade cost the Reds a playoff spot in 2006. The numbers say otherwise and, unlike popular perception, the numbers don't lie.

RFS62
05-07-2007, 10:20 AM
Outstanding post.

welcome to the board.

peterose00
05-07-2007, 10:25 AM
Hello all. This is my first post. I'm a long time Reds fan who picked up this site when I read the responses to my friend's blog post "Reassessing the Kearns Trade." I am Craig's co-worker who generated the idea for the article. Because I am new here and unable to post a reply on the Old Red Guard, I thought I would post my thoughts on the responses to the blog in this thread. Thanks for reading and I look forward to being part of this online community.

REASSESSING "REASSESSING THE KEARNS TRADE"

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth" - V.I. Lenin

As the Reds fan who inspired the Shyster's latest column, "Reassessing The Kearns Trade," I feel a good deal of responsibility for some of the critical remarks the Shyster has taken on baseballthinkfactory and redszone. The article has generated over 130 posts on the old read guard as I am writing this response. Generally speaking, those who still disagree with the trade will admit that the Reds have since improved with Hamilton and Gonzalez but raise two arguments on why the trade was nevertheless a mistake: (1) the Reds should have gotten more value for those players; and (2) the trade failed to acheive its stated purpose, which was to make the team better in 2006.

As to the first argument, it can only be debated with conjecture. The Reds gave up an average hitting NL right fielder with good defensive skills. They gave up an error-prone shortstop with a decent bat. It is clear that both players, arbitration eligible with free agency on the horizon, were getting expensive relative to their production. It is also clear that Wayne Krivsky wanted to go in a different long-term direction. Who knows what type of return Krivsky was offered for these players. My sense is that it was much less than Reds fans expect. Teams can go out and get players with similar production for perhaps a bit more money in free agency and not have to give up any players in return, even if those players are unproven prospects or major league rookies. It's very similar to my mentality when I am trading in a car, holding a garage sale, or selling my junk on ebay - I am consistently dissappointed in the selling price. Human beings tend to over-value their own property relative to what is offered on the free and open market. I think that goes for fans of sports teams as well.

While the first argument may be worthy of debate, the second argument is where I was most concerned. I read posts pointing out that the Reds were 45-44 before the trade and 35-38 after it. As one poster on the old red guard put it: "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." Another poster pointed out how the Reds team batting average and runs per game dropped after the trade.

I began to worry. Had I been wrong? Had I let the Shyster down? Had the loss of Kearns and Lopez's bats really caused my Reds to miss out on that playoff spot for which they fell 3.5 games short. I decided to investigate by checking the stats. My conclusion is that many Reds fans have fallen for (or purposefully refused to see through) the fallacy that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The Andy Griffith Show went off the air on April 1, 1968. Within the next couple months, great Americans Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were assasignated. I suppose one could argue that without the Andy Griffith Show, Americans lost their sense of civility and family values and that was the cause of these senseless tragedies. However, my gut tells me that there were other causal factors in play and the Andy Griffith Show-1968 assasignations was merely a spurious correlation.

Like the above example, after looking at the statistics, I became convinced that while there was a drop in run production and wins during the post-trade 2006 Reds season, that decline had very little to do with the absence of Kearns and Lopez. Rather, it is almost exclusively attributable to the horrendous September slumps of the other six starters in the Reds lineup.

Trade bashers ignore that the Reds improved their record from 45-44 at the trade on July 14th to 67-61 by August 24th. In so doing, they gained five games on their pre-trade record and were in a virtual first place deadlock with the Cardinals (who were 66-60 on August 24th). After August 24th, the wheels fell off. The Reds went 13-21 and finished 3.5 games behind the Cardinals for the NL Central title. The reasons for this decline can almost exclusively be explained by the September batting averages of the Reds' other six starting position players:

Adam Dunn: .157
Ken Griffy, Jr.: .071
Edwin Encarnacion: .214
Brandon Phillips: .149
Scott Hatteburg: .206
David Ross: .185

Given that team-wide futility, Alex Rodriquez and Alphonso Soriano could not have made the Reds winners in September, 2006, much less Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez. Royce Clayton was bench for most of September (going .206 in only 34 at bats). Meanwhile, Rich Aurillia, who ended up replacing Clayton at short for most of the games in September, hit a tidy .344 in September with 90 at bats. Austin Kearns was replaced by a platoon of Ryan Freel and Chris Denorfia. While Freel struggled along with the rest of the team (a .206 September batting average with 53 at bats), Chris Denorfia hit .352 in September in 54 at bats. The Reds got equal or better offensive production during their decline in September 2006 from the Kearns and Lopez replacements. The problem was everyone else.

I wasn't the biggest trade supporter at the time. But I've come to realize that it probably resulted in a net benefit for the Reds organization and did not cost the Reds a 2006 run at glory. I think that some were so vehemently against the trade that, in an attempt to prove they were right, they have endorsed bogus arguments such as the trade cost the 2006 Reds a playoff spot. That sentiment has been echoed so many times that even though clearly wrong, it has been generally accepted as the truth.

I don't think every move Wayne Krivsky has made has been correct. I'm still scratching my head at the Rheal Cormier acquisition. I am frustrated that the Reds have not gone out and gotten a legitimate closer. However, from the top down, the Reds organization was one of the poorest run MLB systems in the 21st Century prior to Krivsky's arrival. If one looks realistically at the Reds roster prior to spring training 2006 (when Krivsky took over), I don't see how one can contend that the Reds have not improved in all facets except the bullpen. Arroyo is pitching brilliantly, Lohse has started the season well, Gonzalez is an upgrade at short, Phillips is an upgrade at second, and Hamilton has been an upgrade from the beloved Austin Kearns. The bullpen is a disaster, but Rome was not built in a day. I'm excited about the long term signings of Arroyo and Harang, the prospect of Homer Bailey being in the rotation, and the nucleas of young players in who could shine over the next 3-4 seasons (Hamilton, Phillips, Encarnacion, Joey Votto, and Jay Bruce). Reds fans should give Wayne Krivsky a little patience in turning around the train wreck he inherited.

In the meantime, we can debate whether Krivsky got enough in return for Lopez and Kearns. However, don't fall victim to the notions that the Reds have downgraded at those positions long-term or that the trade cost the Reds a playoff spot in 2006. The numbers say otherwise and, unlike popular perception, the numbers don't lie.

I've been taken to task so much for trying to say the same thing you just did. I can now see why -- I wasn't as articulate.

I totally agree with you.

Great post!!!

gonelong
05-07-2007, 10:30 AM
I wasn't the biggest trade supporter at the time. But I've come to realize that it probably resulted in a net benefit for the Reds organization and did not cost the Reds a 2006 run at glory. I think that some were so vehemently against the trade that, in an attempt to prove they were right, they have endorsed bogus arguments such as the trade cost the 2006 Reds a playoff spot. That sentiment has been echoed so many times that even though clearly wrong, it has been generally accepted as the truth.



Thats a new one to me. I don't recall that one being forwarded by anyone here, and certainly not by the masses.

Nice overall post though, welcome aboard.

GL

Red Leader
05-07-2007, 10:35 AM
Welcome to the board, Snow Chief and good first post. I'll be looking forward to reading more from you in the future...

RedEye
05-07-2007, 10:39 AM
In the meantime, we can debate whether Krivsky got enough in return for Lopez and Kearns. However, don't fall victim to the notions that the Reds have downgraded at those positions long-term or that the trade cost the Reds a playoff spot in 2006. The numbers say otherwise and, unlike popular perception, the numbers don't lie.

Very nice post... elegantly argued and much better than I thought from the title, which almost made me fall out of my chair. ;)

Unfortunately, I think the two sides have a fundamental disagreement, and it has to do with your first point, not the one you spend most of your time defending. Most anti-Trade "bashers" would be inclined to agree that we have gotten upgrades at several positions (although some would still hold that we are now substantially overpaying a good-field, no-hit shortstop and lacking a potent RH bat for the line-up, but those are mere quibbles).

While claims that Krivsky "could have gotten better" might be conjecture, we also do know that Krivsky himself reflected that fans "might think he overpaid" right after The Trade. While not an admission of guilt by a long stretch, this is odd wording from a GM bartering for talent during a playoff run, a role that usually calls for a "media sell" on even the most imbalanced deals. We also know that Bob Wickman and several other useful bullpen arms were dealt around the same time of The Trade (including several to our own team like Scott Schoenweiss and Eddie Guardado) for MUCH cheaper prices. Given these facts, it does not seem outlandish to think that Krivsky could have gotten better arms in return for Kearns and Lopez had he waited until the off-season--or even had he talked to other teams in a more constructive manner. Indeed, we also know that several respected, long-time Reds employees resigned from the FO specifically because Krivsky was so bull-headed about dealing valuable commodities without listening to them. Many anti-Trade denizens are so exhausted from marshaling this evidence on deaf ears that they have been reduced to terse, one-line responses like "Krivsky could have gotten better value" or "Screw this, I don't care anymore. Let's move on."

Further, there is this constant pretension among pro-Traders (should I call them that? perhaps "Trade rationalizers" is a better label?) that somehow their forms of conjecture, buttressed with Aurilia and Deno's fill-in stats, or the perceived Hamilton upgrade, or whatever, are somehow more potent than our (also evidence-based) claims that Krivsky could have done better, and should have.

DTCromer
05-07-2007, 06:28 PM
they have endorsed bogus arguments such as the trade cost the 2006 Reds a playoff spot.

That's the worst argument out there. Costing us a playoff spot in '06? I'd rather not make the playoffs in '06 to make a playoff run beginning the next year and rebuilding the weakest part of our team for the next few years. I'm cremating a dead horse, but I still think this was a great trade. It's not like we were able to predict the injuries (although I'm sure Mr. Irrelevant in DC probably could've).

kaldaniels
05-07-2007, 06:32 PM
Thats a new one to me. I don't recall that one being forwarded by anyone here, and certainly not by the masses.

Nice overall post though, welcome aboard.

GL

I've seen it inferred several times that w/Kearns and Lopez we'd have had a better shot at the playoffs if not made it in. Not all have said that, but there has definetly been a mention of that.

registerthis
05-07-2007, 07:26 PM
Thats a new one to me. I don't recall that one being forwarded by anyone here, and certainly not by the masses.

I haven't heard that one either.

A LOT of things contributed to the team's late-season swan dive last year, but it's safe to say that Bray, Majewski and Clayton did *nothing* to help the cause.

Which was the purpose, wasn't it?

At any rate, the "first argument" (the one related to the return) is where I focus my ire, simply because I don't see how anyone can look at what we got back in return as an equal return to what we gave up. Say what you will about the production levels of Kearns and Lopez, but the fact is they are *producing*--something Bray, majewski et al. have yet to do. Under a "best case" scenario, potentially, down the road, Bray could become a serviceable bullpen arm. Majewski *might* contribute in a marginal role. Thompson--well, who knows, but he's as likely to never set foot in GABP as he is to contribute positively for the club.

In other words, in order to convince me that the Reds didn't get hosed in this deal, you'll have to convince me that two starting position players (both above average offensively) are worth only bullpen question marks and some minor league fodder. And that is something I simply can't buy.

registerthis
05-07-2007, 07:28 PM
I still think this was a great trade. It's not like we were able to predict the injuries.

Screw the injuries. Majewski was never anything special, Clayton was junk, and Bray *might* have some upside, but is nothing more than a question mark at this point.

The injuries have only made an awful trade look worse.

kaldaniels
05-07-2007, 07:40 PM
Snow Chief the early leader in ROY votes.....

ED44
05-07-2007, 11:01 PM
I still think the Reds could have received more for Kearns & Lopez. I really like Bray, but I always look to the trade that went down on July 31. The Pirates traded Roberto Hernandez and Oliver Perez to the Mets for Xavier Nady. I would have much rather traded Kearns (who should have as much/more trade value) for those two and still had Felipe to dangle, than net what we did in return.

RedEye
05-07-2007, 11:10 PM
I still think the Reds could have received more for Kearns & Lopez. I really like Bray, but I always look to the trade that went down on July 31. The Pirates traded Roberto Hernandez and Oliver Perez to the Mets for Xavier Nady. I would have much rather traded Kearns (who should have as much/more trade value) for those two and still had Felipe to dangle, than net what we did in return.

Forgot about that one. The examples just keep on coming. I really don't think the whole "Wayne could have gotten something better" argument is pure speculation on our part. There are TONS of examples of trades out there that netted teams far better players for far less.

edabbs44
05-07-2007, 11:11 PM
Forgot about that one. The examples just keep on coming. I really don't think the whole "Wayne could have gotten something better" argument is pure speculation on our part. There are TONS of examples of trades out there that netted teams far better players for far less.

Wickman for a lower level minor league catcher.

RedEye
05-07-2007, 11:11 PM
Snow Chief the early leader in ROY votes.....

+1 :beerme:

RedEye
05-07-2007, 11:12 PM
Snow Chief the early leader in ROY votes.....

A hush fell over the crowd of RedsZoners as they awaited The Snow Chief's second post...

WVRedsFan
05-07-2007, 11:57 PM
Pretty darn good first post, my friend.

I think you're a keeper.

Even if I don't agree with you...much.

kaldaniels
05-08-2007, 12:22 AM
A hush fell over the crowd of RedsZoners as they awaited The Snow Chief's second post...

:laugh:

AtomicDumpling
05-08-2007, 12:55 AM
Thanks for the nice post Snow Chief and welcome to the board.

However I disagree with you entirely.

As a couple of people have mentioned already it is not a mere opinion that we got ripped off in the trade. It is a proven fact.

There were several pitchers superior to Bray and Majewski that were traded at about the same time in exchange for much less valuable players than Kearns and Lopez. The best example is our own Eddie Guardado, whom we got 4 days before the Disaster Trade. We got a proven closer (rather than unproven middle relievers) in exchange for Travis Chick, a minor prospect. To beat all we also got cash in the deal too!

There are plenty of other examples also that I won't repeat here of good relievers being acquired cheaply. So it wasn't just a matter of Reds fans overestimating the value of their players. Relief pitchers are the cheapest component of MLB teams. You simply don't trade proven, quality, young, starting position players for raw bullpen help.

Krivsky made it very clear the Disaster Trade was made to get the Reds into the playoffs in 2006. It was a dismal failure. The trade was not made to shed salary. It was not made to create space for Josh Hamilton nor Alex Gonzalez. In fact, a side effect of the trade was that Krivsky was then forced to overpay for the journeyman shortstop because we had no other option to fill the position.

We would have Hamilton right now regardless of the Disaster Trade having been made or not. That fact has been made clear in several previous threads.

If we hadn't been forced to spend $14 million for a re-tread shortstop we would have had plenty of other options to spend that money on. Maybe a real first baseman instead of a geriatric platoon, or maybe a quality closer, or a #3 starting pitcher.

At the very least we could have gotten much better relief pitchers than Bray and injured Majewski in exchange for Kearns and/or Lopez. Quality closers are obtained for such players for crying out loud.

All of the good things you mentioned in the second half of your post happened in spite of the Disaster Trade -- not because of it.

sonny
05-08-2007, 03:40 AM
All of the good things you mentioned in the second half of your post happened in spite of the Disaster Trade -- not because of it.

I don't believe thats what he was saying.

redsmetz
05-08-2007, 05:34 AM
If we hadn't been forced to spend $14 million for a re-tread shortstop we would have had plenty of other options to spend that money on. Maybe a real first baseman instead of a geriatric platoon, or maybe a quality closer, or a #3 starting pitcher.

At the very least we could have gotten much better relief pitchers than Bray and injured Majewski in exchange for Kearns and/or Lopez. Quality closers are obtained for such players for crying out loud.

All of the good things you mentioned in the second half of your post happened in spite of the Disaster Trade -- not because of it.

But the truth is that the "retread shortstop" is significantly outperforming Lopez. And even the "geriatric platoon" is playing as good as many, many first baseman. I'll grant that we might have received better pitchers than Bray & Majewski, but I can't say that definitively. And there is absolutely no question the jury is still out on whether either will be worthwhile for the Reds. And while you didn't mention him, Clayton is a complete non-factor; anyone who didn't believe he was a mere throw-in on this trade is ignoring the reality - the Reds never had any intention of extending him. The Reds have done very well replacing Felipe Lopez with Alex Gonzalez.

We could go on endlessly with this question. The question really becomes what do we do to get a bullpen that will perform with any consistency. We've wasted far too many superb outings from our starting staff and it's absolutely put us behind the 8-ball. I can't say that Bray or Majewski will not contribute, but I'd like to get some semblance of their ability to show up.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 08:53 AM
[QUOTE=AtomicDumpling;1335024]
If we hadn't been forced to spend $14 million for a re-tread shortstop we would have had plenty of other options to spend that money on. Maybe a real first baseman instead of a geriatric platoon, or maybe a quality closer, or a #3 starting pitcher.

QUOTE]

Thanks for the kind words. I disagree with this proposition. Have you seen Lopez's contract? It is very similar to Gonzo's. We would have been paying about the same per year for Lopez and getting his terrible defense.

Gonzo's signing was a wash financially compared to Lopez and he has been putting up better numbers at the plate and has been better in the field.

rotnoid
05-08-2007, 09:56 AM
There are plenty of other examples also that I won't repeat here of good relievers being acquired cheaply. So it wasn't just a matter of Reds fans overestimating the value of their players. Relief pitchers are the cheapest component of MLB teams. You simply don't trade proven, quality, young, starting position players for raw bullpen help.

The examples shown are all for relievers, I'll give you that. Some of them may even qualify as "good." But most of them are not good, young relievers; which is what Krivsky thought he was getting in return. Wickman, Hernandez, and Guardado are known commodities. They are what they are. Bray and Majewski were, in his eyes and in the eyes of many others, young relievers that the Reds control for years into the future. That's not the same as geriatrics (which we have plenty of now) who can walk at the end of the year as free agents. In that respect, their value is higher than that of Wickman et al because the Nationals gave up pre-arbitration years in exchange for salaraies that were destined to go up.

registerthis
05-08-2007, 10:00 AM
But most of them are not good, young relievers; which is what Krivsky thought he was getting in return.

And if that is accurate, then Krivsky has great difficulty judging talent. Even healthy, most here knew that Majewski was overvalued and nothing special. And, again, Bray showed promise but no guarantees of producing regularly at the major league level.

I can go to McDonalds and pay $25 for a hamburger because I'm thinking I'm getting a filet minon--and it doesn't make it a good deal.

Reverend Doo-Rag
05-08-2007, 10:14 AM
If the sole purpose of the trade was for 2006, then why would K have cared if the relievers were young?

Kearns, Lopez, Wagner = The right shiney trinkets at the right time to the right GM who would go for them. Then we got back damaged goods from the guy who wouldn't be afriad to damage his rep by dealing said damaged goods. This was a MUCH less significant trade then this board thinks.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 10:17 AM
I think it is a bit of revisionist history to say that most here knew that Majewski was overvalued and nothing special. Before coming to the Reds, he had any ERA of under four in each of the three years he pitched in the majors. That may not be CY Young numbers, but it is certainly better than league average.

It's not as if Austin Kearns is significantly above league average in production for his position. If Majewski was "nothing special," so was Kearns.

membengal
05-08-2007, 10:20 AM
Snow Chief, a BUNCH of the posters on here were sending warning flares up about Majewski the split second that the trade was announced. nothing revisionist about that.

Nothing can be said, nearly one year later, changes my belief that the immediate return for what the Reds sent was not near enough. It was what it was. Time to move on.

rotnoid
05-08-2007, 10:22 AM
And if that is accurate, then Krivsky has great difficulty judging talent. Even healthy, most here knew that Majewski was overvalued and nothing special. And, again, Bray showed promise but no guarantees of producing regularly at the major league level.

I can go to McDonalds and pay $25 for a hamburger because I'm thinking I'm getting a filet minon--and it doesn't make it a good deal.


I'm not necessarily saying that it was a good trade, I'm simply commenting that control of players costs more than guys with free agent rights. That fact seems to be easily dismissed around here.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 10:35 AM
Snow Chief, a BUNCH of the posters on here were sending warning flares up about Majewski the split second that the trade was announced. nothing revisionist about that.

Nothing can be said, nearly one year later, changes my belief that the immediate return for what the Reds sent was not near enough. It was what it was. Time to move on.

What were the specifics of the warnings? Surely know one knew about his injury. Was it that his ERA climbed from .293 to .352 when compared to the season before? While that is not going in the positive direction, it is hard for any ML pitcher to stay under .300 for a career.

membengal
05-08-2007, 10:37 AM
That he had been highly hit lucky was the one that I immediately remember. That the move from RFK to GABP wasn't going to help either.

RedEye
05-08-2007, 10:43 AM
I think it is a bit of revisionist history to say that most here knew that Majewski was overvalued and nothing special. Before coming to the Reds, he had any ERA of under four in each of the three years he pitched in the majors. That may not be CY Young numbers, but it is certainly better than league average.

It's not as if Austin Kearns is significantly above league average in production for his position. If Majewski was "nothing special," so was Kearns.

I think conventional wisdom would say that WK should have tried options from our minor league system before he dealt for young relievers. Salmon, Coutlangus, and a few others were already pitching well then, and many people called for their promotion on this very board. That's where a lot of other teams get their young relievers from -- and without giving up so much. If we had tried them and then they hadn't worked out, we wouldn't have lost anything, and then Wayne could have moved to drastic measures. Instead, he skipped that step and went right to trading for veteran relievers and, ultimately, to The Trade.

RedEye
05-08-2007, 10:48 AM
I think it is a bit of revisionist history to say that most here knew that Majewski was overvalued and nothing special. Before coming to the Reds, he had any ERA of under four in each of the three years he pitched in the majors. That may not be CY Young numbers, but it is certainly better than league average.

It's not as if Austin Kearns is significantly above league average in production for his position. If Majewski was "nothing special," so was Kearns.

For that matter, putting any kind of :) on The Trade is serious revisionist history as well. That's what compels me to keep posting on this topic. If we want to move on, let's move on... but let's not try to make this horrible deal look better by throwing a bundle of various post-developments at the wall (Hamilton's arrival, Gonzo's signing, the better defense, etc.) I firmly believe that we cannot analyze The Trade ex post facto in this manner. It should be analyzed for what we got, when we got it--which was not a lot, at the wrong time.

RedsManRick
05-08-2007, 11:04 AM
Just want to point out that Felipe Lopez makes 3.9M this year compared to Gonzalez's 3.5M. Kearns also makes 3.5M compared to Josh Hamilton's 380K. We will likely get equal or better overall performance from Gonzalez and Hamilton than we would have from Lopez and Kearns. Had the trade not been made, we would not have Gonzalez and we likely would not have Hamilton -- and certainly not in a starting capacity. Wagner was ineffective and a loss of an asset more than of a real contributor. In this regard, I don't think the trade hurt us any.

That said, I don't know how you can deny the opportunity cost. The above judgement basically says, if Kearns & Lopez had merely been cut, we weren't hurt too much. However, we did we gain exactly? Clayton and Harris provided zero value. Majewski and Bray minimal value to date. Thompson looks promising but is of no value until he either contributes at the major league level or is traded for somebody who does.

The problem, again, was the opportunity cost. The trade was meant to accomplish 4 things:
1.) Restructure salary so as to free money for extensions to other players.
2.) Strengthen the bullpen immediately for the stretch run
3.) Take advantage of the trade value of young players entering arbitration by strengthening the pipeline with future pre-arb talent
4.) Replace the spots on the roster with competent major leaguers

So, how did it do?
1.) Mission accomplished. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, we could've accomplished this by merely cutting those 2, so this wasn't exactly a laudable achievement.
2.) Majewski & Bray combined for 42.2 IP and a 5.69 ERA. Hmmm. Fail.
3.) 3 people are still in the organization. Majewski might pan out as a replacement level reliever. Bray looks like a potential above average reliever. Thompson is a solid prospect, but still a prospect. TBD, but not looking great.
4.) Kearns OPS'd .843. His replacements, mostly Freel, Denorfia, and Hollandsworth were under .800. Net loss of production. Lopez OPS'd .749 with 23 SB. Clayton and Aurilia, his primary replacements, at best equaled his production if you combine their contributions. Clayton and Aurilia were not measurably better in the field than Lopez. If Aurilia was at SS, it also meant we were not using our optimal platoon at 1B. Harris got just 25 AB. We DID lose offensive production and did not gain defensive value.

So, in recap. The most positive aspect of the trade is that it cleared the path for Hamilton while freeing up future monies for more valuable players, namely Dunn, Arroyo, and Harang. Unfortunately, this would have been accomplished regardless of the return. I can give Wayne credit for understanding that those two players were expendable. That said, the trade did not increase our chances of winning last year and did not add much of value to our ability in the future. There is value in the roster and payroll flexibility of the trade. But I still maintain there was a lost opportunity because WK tried to do everything he wanted to accomplish in a single move. As a result he failed at accomplishing much of anything beyond the quite simple freeing of monies which would have resulted from any deal that didn't bring back a big contract.

Had he instead focused on just getting 1 or 2 impact prospects, or just getting that impact reliever for the stretch run, I imagine he would've done better at accomplishing one of those goals.

Re: Majewski. He's a reliever with mediocre stuff who doesn't miss bats and doesn't have great control. His ERA is a result of keeping the ball in the yard while pitching in pitcher friendly environments. Look around baseball and tell me how many relievers with a K/9 of 5.50 and a BB/9 of 3.60 maintain ERAs under 4.00. Furthremore, there were known injuries in his recent history. Even if he was believed to be healthy as of the deal, it was one more risk factor.

Bottom line is that WK had few assets to work with to both strengthen the Reds for the short and long term. Unfortunately he dealt 3 of his best assets for a return that failed to significantly impact either our short or long term success. Is the team better than it was? Probably. The trade was not a bad idea in concept. However, I maintain it was a bad trade in execution. I know that weren't going to trade that package for Ervin Santana and Brandon Wood. But the collective opinion of GMs around baseball made it pretty clear that WK got less in return than he should've. While you can't prove what SHOULD have happened, the evidence suggests we could have done better.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 11:08 AM
For that matter, putting any kind of :) on The Trade is serious revisionist history as well. That's what compels me to keep posting on this topic. If we want to move on, let's move on... but let's not try to make this horrible deal look better by throwing a bundle of various post-developments at the wall (Hamilton's arrival, Gonzo's signing, the better defense, etc.) I firmly believe that we cannot analyze The Trade ex post facto in this manner. It should be analyzed for what we got, when we got it--which was not a lot, at the wrong time.

I fundamentally disagree. You have to analyze a trade on whole - did it allow you to improve your team. Suppose you hear of an incredible investment opportunity. You don't have the liquid assets to take advantage of it. So you decide to sell a piece of real estate that you own. You think it is worth 100k. The best offer you get is 75k. You take the best offer, put those funds in the investment and double your money in the next year. You have made a 50k net worth improvement. If you analzye the real estate deal in a vacuum, it looks lousy. It you look at how it improved your net worth as a whole, it looks great.

It is reasonable to suspect that Krivsky thought he could do better than Kearns and Lopez down the road. He has done so. He has gotten a couple pitching prospects to boot. I call that improvement. I would rather he did what he did than sit on Kearns and Lopez because he thought he was not being offered enough. It helped the ball club. That is all I care about.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 11:12 AM
For that matter, putting any kind of :) on The Trade is serious revisionist history as well. That's what compels me to keep posting on this topic. If we want to move on, let's move on... but let's not try to make this horrible deal look better by throwing a bundle of various post-developments at the wall (Hamilton's arrival, Gonzo's signing, the better defense, etc.) I firmly believe that we cannot analyze The Trade ex post facto in this manner. It should be analyzed for what we got, when we got it--which was not a lot, at the wrong time.

The other thing is, analyzing a trade for what you get when you get it is not always the way to go. Sometimes you don't know what you get. When they got it, it looked like the Tigers fleeced the Braves by getting Doyle Alexander to help lead them to the playoffs in 1987. The return, John Smoltz, was of little help. I doubt either one will be HOF caliber, but both Bray and Thompson are very good prospects.

Redsland
05-08-2007, 11:16 AM
Just want to point out that Felipe Lopez makes 3.9M this year compared to Gonzalez's 3.5M. Kearns also makes 3.5M compared to Josh Hamilton's 380K. We will likely get equal or better overall performance from Gonzalez and Hamilton than we would have from Lopez and Kearns. Had the trade not been made, we would not have Gonzalez and we likely would not have Hamilton -- and certainly not in a starting capacity. Wagner was ineffective and a loss of an asset more than of a real contributor. In this regard, I don't think the trade hurt us any.

That said, I don't know how you can deny the opportunity cost. The above judgement basically says, if Kearns & Lopez had merely been cut, we weren't hurt too much. However, we did we gain exactly? Clayton and Harris provided zero value. Majewski and Bray minimal value to date. Thompson looks promising but is of no value until he either contributes at the major league level or is traded for somebody who does.

The problem, again, was the opportunity cost. The trade was meant to accomplish 4 things:
1.) Restructure salary so as to free money for extensions to other players.
2.) Strengthen the bullpen immediately for the stretch run
3.) Take advantage of the trade value of young players entering arbitration by strengthening the pipeline with future pre-arb talent
4.) Replace the spots on the roster with competent major leaguers

So, how did it do?
1.) Mission accomplished. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, we could've accomplished this by merely cutting those 2, so this wasn't exactly a laudable achievement.
2.) Majewski & Bray combined for 42.2 IP and a 5.69 ERA. Hmmm. Fail.
3.) 3 people are still in the organization. Majewski might pan out as a replacement level reliever. Bray looks like a potential above average reliever. Thompson is a solid prospect, but still a prospect. TBD, but not looking great.
4.) Kearns OPS'd .843. His replacements, mostly Freel, Denorfia, and Hollandsworth were under .800. Net loss of production. Lopez OPS'd .749 with 23 SB. Clayton and Aurilia, his primary replacements, at best equaled his production if you combine their contributions. Clayton and Aurilia were not measurably better in the field than Lopez. If Aurilia was at SS, it also meant we were not using our optimal platoon at 1B. Harris got just 25 AB. We DID lose offensive production and did not gain defensive value.

So, in recap. The most positive aspect of the trade is that it cleared the path for Hamilton while freeing up future monies for more valuable players, namely Dunn, Arroyo, and Harang. Unfortunately, this would have been accomplished regardless of the return. I can give Wayne credit for understanding that those two players were expendable. That said, the trade did not increase our chances of winning last year and did not add much of value to our ability in the future. There is value in the roster and payroll flexibility of the trade. But I still maintain there was a lost opportunity because WK tried to do everything he wanted to accomplish in a single move. As a result he failed at accomplishing much of anything beyond the quite simple freeing of monies which would have resulted from any deal that didn't bring back a big contract.

Had he instead focused on just getting 1 or 2 impact prospects, or just getting that impact reliever for the stretch run, I imagine he would've done better at accomplishing one of those goals.

Re: Majewski. He's a reliever with mediocre stuff who doesn't miss bats and doesn't have great control. His ERA is a result of keeping the ball in the yard while pitching in pitcher friendly environments. Look around baseball and tell me how many relievers with a K/9 of 5.50 and a BB/9 of 3.60 maintain ERAs under 4.00. Furthremore, there were known injuries in his recent history. Even if he was believed to be healthy as of the deal, it was one more risk factor.

Bottom line is that WK had few assets to work with to both strengthen the Reds for the short and long term. Unfortunately he dealt 3 of his best assets for a return that failed to significantly impact either our short or long term success. Is the team better than it was? Probably. The trade was not a bad idea in concept. However, I maintain it was a bad trade in execution. I know that weren't going to trade that package for Ervin Santana and Brandon Wood. But the collective opinion of GMs around baseball made it pretty clear that WK got less in return than he should've. While you can't prove what SHOULD have happened, the evidence suggests we could have done better.
Archive.

RedEye
05-08-2007, 11:32 AM
I fundamentally disagree. You have to analyze a trade on whole - did it allow you to improve your team. Suppose you hear of an incredible investment opportunity. You don't have the liquid assets to take advantage of it. So you decide to sell a piece of real estate that you own. You think it is worth 100k. The best offer you get is 75k. You take the best offer, put those funds in the investment and double your money in the next year. You have made a 50k net worth improvement. If you analzye the real estate deal in a vacuum, it looks lousy. It you look at how it improved your net worth as a whole, it looks great.

I would agree with this, except that we all know Krivsky could have gotten more for Kearns and Lopez. All you have to do is look around at the other transactions that took place around the deal. Many other credible relievers changed uniforms for a lot less. We know that the Indians almost traded Westbrook for Kearns the year before, and Kearns hadn't amassed a healthy season in several years. I'm not saying Wayne shouldn't have sold off his real estate at all, I just don't think he waited the extra little bit to sell his real estate for 90k, or 95k or whatever. If you want me to play the analogy game, I'd say it's like selling your car to independent users rather than the dealer. IMO, Wayne went straight to the dealer and got the lower trade-in price rather than posting on craigslist, putting ads in the paper, and waiting a few days for some chump to give him a better deal. That's all I'm saying.


It is reasonable to suspect that Krivsky thought he could do better than Kearns and Lopez down the road. He has done so. He has gotten a couple pitching prospects to boot. I call that improvement. I would rather he did what he did than sit on Kearns and Lopez because he thought he was not being offered enough. It helped the ball club. That is all I care about.

That's fine if it's all you care about. However, you're choosing to blind yourself to what really happened. I don't think selling Kearns and Lopez undervalue is what you're talking about at all. You're talking about what Krivsky did afterwards--which, as I've argued elsewhere, was decidedly NOT contingent on The Trade, and should not be written into history that way at all. Hamilton still could have been drafted had we traded Kearns later for better value. Gonzo could have been signed once we found a better bid for Lopez in the off season. If you're going to make iffy causal connections between The Trade and later transactions, then anti-Traders are equally justified in making arguments about what might have been.

Neither good hitting outfielders or good hitting middle infielders grow on trees. Mediocre young relievers and minor league pitching prospects recovering from arm surgery do.

registerthis
05-08-2007, 11:38 AM
I fundamentally disagree. You have to analyze a trade on whole - did it allow you to improve your team.

Trades are either won or lost based upon the return garnered. Everything else is fluff and nonsense. The idea that trades can be evaluated based upon a belief that what is received isn't really all that important--particularly if spare parts from somewhere else can be found to replace the players lost--is the mentality that has driven this team into the ground for the better part of the last decade. Good teams obtain good return on their trades; poor teams do not. It's really as simple as that.

Ltlabner
05-08-2007, 11:46 AM
Trades are either won or lost based upon the return garnered. Everything else is fluff and nonsense.

Totally disagree.

Yes, getting a good return for your player is one (critical) part of the equation when grading a trade. But "everything else" is fluff and nonsense is...well...fluff and nonsense. Trades are not made in a vacume.

Using your model, a team in a pennant race could trade their ace starter for 8 hot prospects. Using the "return is all that matters" measuring stick, it's a fantastic trade. A wonderfull trade! You "won" the trade. Except, of corse, for the small detail of sending out your ace starter in the strech run of pennant race.

Or you are in rebuilding mode and trade your one good pitcher for 5 hot prospects. Soley judging the trade on return it's the deal of the century. Of course, if all 5 prospects tank, it's not such a dandy trade after all. In theroy, the trade was a good one but in practicallity it was a dud.

Or you trade a PTBNL for a big stick who comes in an creates nothing but clubhouse problems, bad press for the franchise and ties up a lot of the GM's time with issues (which prevents the GM from maximizing his utility doing his job). Sure, you "won" the trade in terms of return but in these other areas, would you really consider that a "win"?

registerthis
05-08-2007, 12:04 PM
Totally disagree.

Yes, getting a good return for your player is one part of the equation when grading a trade. But "everything else" is fluff and nonsense is...well...fluff and nonsense. Trades are not made in a vacume.

Never said it was, but the return on a trade must be paramount--otherwise you'll end up getting hosed. Time and again. What is the motivation for entering into trade talks NOT looking to get the best possible return on the deal? It's completely counter-intuitive to improving the team.


Using your model, a team in a pennant race could trade their ace starter for 8 hot prospects.

This example doesn't fly because the team must have an *impetus* to make the trade. My post never said "trade for trading's sake." It said: when a team is making a trade, it behooves them to do everything possible to ensure the highest possible return on the deal.

If Adam Dunn were traded for a backup catcher in order to make room for Jay Bruce, would the trade be considered a success if Bruce were to somehow replace all of Dunn's production? Of course not--Bruce performing well would have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the trade of Dunn. Everyone would see that the return we got for Dunn was paltry compared to his value--perceived or otherwise.


Or you are in rebuilding mode and trade your one good pitcher for 5 hot prospects. Soley judging the trade on return it's the deal of the century. Of course, if all 5 prospects tank, it's not such a dandy trade after all. In theroy, the trade was a good one but in practicallity it was a dud.

Yep, prospects tank, players get injured, skills mysteriously decline, etc. You're not distinguishing between properly doing your homework on a trade, and being able to predict the future. Sometimes trades don't work out due to little or no fault of the team. I can live with those. It's the trades that are made with reckless abandon--the ones where the team doesn't make every available effort to obtain the greatest possible return, instead settling for a salary dump or a "quick fix"--that irk me.

RedsManRick
05-08-2007, 12:13 PM
Totally disagree.

Yes, getting a good return for your player is one (critical) part of the equation when grading a trade. But "everything else" is fluff and nonsense is...well...fluff and nonsense. Trades are not made in a vacume.

Using your model, a team in a pennant race could trade their ace starter for 8 hot prospects. Using the "return is all that matters" measuring stick, it's a fantastic trade. A wonderfull trade! You "won" the trade. Except, of corse, for the small detail of sending out your ace starter in the strech run of pennant race.

Or you are in rebuilding mode and trade your one good pitcher for 5 hot prospects. Soley judging the trade on return it's the deal of the century. Of course, if all 5 prospects tank, it's not such a dandy trade after all. In theroy, the trade was a good one but in practicallity it was a dud.

Or you trade a PTBNL for a big stick who comes in an creates nothing but clubhouse problems, bad press for the franchise and ties up a lot of the GM's time with issues (which prevents the GM from maximizing his utility doing his job). Sure, you "won" the trade in terms of return but in these other areas, would you really consider that a "win"?

Given this measuring stick, the context in which the trade was made, what exactly did WK accomplish? Did he strengthen the Reds for the 2006 stretch? Nope. Did he acquire players/prospects likely to have significant impact in 2007 beyond? Well, the jury is still out of course but the early signs aren't positive? The only thing we can say the trade truly accomplished was it got rid of a few financial commitments. Unfortunately, there was nothing unique about the trade itself that caused that third effect. That would have happened regardless of the return and could have been done in the offseason.

Perhaps Majewski becomes servicable, Bray becomes a closer, and Daryl Thompson lands in a major league rotation a few years down the road. IF that happens, we can then say that the "acquire talent to help the Reds in the future" portion of the trade really did work out. The jury is still out.

If we go with the premise that we aren't complaining about making A trade involving those players prior to the 2007 season, but merely analyzing THE specific trade which was made, we can also say that the financial aspect (and thus Gonzalez, Hamilton, extensions) is not part of the calculus. The value therein is a result of making A trade, not the specific positive outcome of THE trade, which is where the complaint lies.

I think your point is well taken, Ltlabner. Trades don't occur in a vacuum. However, you have differentiate between those outcomes which result specifically from the specific trade which was made (the immediate return) and the effects of having made a trade involving those parties.

In your example, the trade of the ace may be great in terms of return ("THE trade) and poor in terms of effect ("A trade). An overall good trade needs to be positive in both regards. Many of the arguments being made in this thread are passing each other. It's like this:

Person A: "the" trade was bad because we failed to achieve the specific goals of "the" trade.
Person B: but it was "a" good trade because it allowed for X, Y, and Z to happen.

They are arguing different points and are both right. WK was smart to make "a" trade for the reasons mentioned in numerous posts. However, "the" trade he made seems to be a failure as it did not accomplish the things it was meant to do. This second point could turn around pending the performance of the pitchers over the next few years, but most of us are not optimistic.

Ltlabner
05-08-2007, 12:44 PM
Never said it was, but the return on a trade must be paramount--otherwise you'll end up getting hosed. Time and again. What is the motivation for entering into trade talks NOT looking to get the best possible return on the deal? It's completely counter-intuitive to improving the team.

I agree, which is why I said that the return on the trade was a critical component to giving them a good/bad grade.

But I also think people get wrapped up in the theory and forget the practical. It's possible to win a trade by getting a great return, yet still lose the trade in the long run for a myrid of reasons. Some of those reasons may be beyond the controll of the GM but they exist none the less. This scenario may result in a trade that ends up being a stinker, just most people don't tag the GM with the blame. But it's still a stinker trade when all is said and done.


Given this measuring stick, the context in which the trade was made, what exactly did WK accomplish?

I think your point is well taken, Ltlabner. Trades don't occur in a vacuum. However, you have differentiate between those outcomes which result specifically from the specific trade which was made (the immediate return) and the effects of having made a trade involving those parties.

In your example, the trade of the ace may be great in terms of return ("THE trade) and poor in terms of effect ("A trade). An overall good trade needs to be positive in both regards. Many of the arguments being made in this thread are passing each other. They are arguing different points and are both right. .

As I said in a different thread, the trade was a failure in the short term goals of (1) getting to the playoffs (2) strengthening the bullpen (3) allowing Denorfia his day in the sun. Long term, the effects of the trade may or may not pan out, but the further you get away from the date of the transaction the more muddeled the analysis gets.

Great point about return of a trade vs. effect of a trade. I agree 100% both have to work out for a trade to be "won".

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 01:39 PM
I think people are really discounting the role of prospects in the trade. Bill Bray was a rookie, former first round pick, who pitched at better than league average in his first full major league season. It's almost like people are saying because he is not contributing now that makes the trade worse. He was hit in the hand with a ground ball - an injury that could happen to anyone. Thompson is a highly rated starting pitching prospect.

Although Krivsky could not say this politically, I think the trade had more to do with dumping inefficient salary, gaining prospects, and improving the ball club for a time when he thinks they can be world series contenders (2 years from now). Because the Reds were playing over their heads when the trade was made, he had to politically spin the goal as "the high price of quality relief pitching."

I know people think the Reds have always been rebuilding and want to win now. From 1999-2005, they were never rebuilding the "right way." Krivsky is trying to do that now and needs some time to get it done. The trade helped in this endevor. It lowered salary, facilitated upgrades at a cheaper price, and nabbed a couple good pitching prospects.

membengal
05-08-2007, 01:44 PM
Snow Chief, that ignores that WK himself said the major reason for that deal last summer was to help the team "win now". No easy way to ignore that...

RedEye
05-08-2007, 01:45 PM
Person A: "the" trade was bad because we failed to achieve the specific goals of "the" trade.
Person B: but it was "a" good trade because it allowed for X, Y, and Z to happen.

They are arguing different points and are both right. WK was smart to make "a" trade for the reasons mentioned in numerous posts. However, "the" trade he made seems to be a failure as it did not accomplish the things it was meant to do. This second point could turn around pending the performance of the pitchers over the next few years, but most of us are not optimistic.

Thanks. This adds a lot of conceptual clarity to the debate at hand. However, I think that the argument of Person B is less justified than Person A if it portends to analyze The Trade. That's because arguments of this sort aren't really talking about The Trade at all. To me, a trade is always an exchange of commodities, and it should not be analyzed otherwise. The example of the Doyle Alexander-John Smoltz trade is a good one, because even when we project it long term (Alexander helped a playoff run, Smoltz helped many more) we are still talking about the players involved in the initial transaction. To borrow the m.o. of our great new member The Snow Chief, I'll use an analogy here to a real life experience that illustrates my point quite well.

Next year, my wife and I are moving to Miami. In preparation for the move, we were contemplating trading in our 2002 Subaru Impreza, a four-wheel drive compact that wouldn't be as needed in Florida's warmer environs. Last month, I checked the Blue Book price for the car, and it was supposed to be worth around $6,500 for dealer trade-in, $7,500 for sale to a private owner. I scanned the consumer reports, looking for good fuel-efficient cars, and zeroed in on the Honda Fit and the Honda Civic.

Unfortunately, last month my wife wrecked the car before we could trade it in or sell it. She ran into a parked car by the side of the road. Fortunately, she wasn't injured, and everything has checked out normal in her tests, so no worries there. The Impreza, on the other hand, was deemed a total loss. A week later, we got a check in the mail from our insurance company for $9,500. Though happy with the return, I worried about our insurance premia skyrocketing. Then, last week, I got a call from our claims agent, who told me that thanks to our clean driving records and our loyalty to their company, our premia would not go up. The net effect of the wreck? We ended up making $2,000 to $3,000 to go towards our next vehicle.

I suppose if you think about it in retrospect, my wife did something good by wrecking the car. However, the fact remains that having her crash into a parked car (hard enough to total our car in the process) and then try to walk out of it without an injury is not a risk I would ever want to take in an effort to make money. There were way too many contingencies involved in our (ironically) making some profit in this situation.

Do I think we were justified in seeking "a trade" of our vehicle?

Yes, I do.

Do I like the unintended consequences of "the trade" we ended up receiving?

Yep. Surprisingly so.

Do I think that "the trade" process of driving a car into another car in order to try to make money from insurance is a dependable way of doing business?

Absolutely not. The risks are just too great.

Reading history backwards can make you see things in different ways, yes it can. But assessing The Trade as a "wreck" of a transaction is not operating in a vacuum. To the contrary, it's accurately labeling something that we should all hope is never repeated. If we have many more wrecks like The Trade, we'll endanger the life of the franchise.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 01:46 PM
The other point is a trade isn't always a zero sum game. There does not always have to be a winner or loser. If you have a team that is one piece away from being a world series favorite, and you have to unload your top prospect to a bad team to get the bad team's stud player who is the missing piece, you do it. That world series win is worth more to the fan base than having an year in-year out all-star 3-4 years down the road. The losing team gets worse in the short term, but ends up doing well by getting the prospect who turns into an all-star. Both teams would have "won" under the scenario I just described.

RedsManRick
05-08-2007, 02:04 PM
I think people are really discounting the role of prospects in the trade. Bill Bray was a rookie, former first round pick, who pitched at better than league average in his first full major league season. It's almost like people are saying because he is not contributing now that makes the trade worse. He was hit in the hand with a ground ball - an injury that could happen to anyone. Thompson is a highly rated starting pitching prospect.

Although Krivsky could not say this politically, I think the trade had more to do with dumping inefficient salary, gaining prospects, and improving the ball club for a time when he thinks they can be world series contenders (2 years from now). Because the Reds were playing over their heads when the trade was made, he had to politically spin the goal as "the high price of quality relief pitching."

I know people think the Reds have always been rebuilding and want to win now. From 1999-2005, they were never rebuilding the "right way." Krivsky is trying to do that now and needs some time to get it done. The trade helped in this endevor. It lowered salary, facilitated upgrades at a cheaper price, and nabbed a couple good pitching prospects.

I think you may have a point. In reality, the trade can not be deemed a complete failure until Majewski, Bray, and Thompson's careers as Reds play out. However, based on the failure of the short term goal, the likely missed opportunity for greater return elsewhere, and the uncertain status of the future, people are going to deem the trade a failure when grading it today.

Your point still stands of course. IF those guys pan out, the trade will look much better down the road. It's just the most of us aren't holding out hope that we're going to get enough value from those 3 to offset the negative aspects of the trade. Time will tell.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 02:06 PM
Snow Chief, that ignores that WK himself said the major reason for that deal last summer was to help the team "win now". No easy way to ignore that...

I don't think it ignores it. I addressed it when I said that politically, he could not disclose what I suspect to be the driving force of the trade.

membengal
05-08-2007, 02:10 PM
Well, I can't deal in the hypothetical "what was WK REALLY thinking", I can only deal in what he says. And he said that deal was intended, in its main component, to help that team win last year. And it certainly didn't do that.

I agree there is hope that the longterm part of it still might be OK (at least, I hold out hope anyway). But that remains an unknown. What IS known is that WK, based on what he said, failed with the first objective of that deal. I refuse to assume there was some secret component to the deal that he for some reason couldn't disclose. That doesn't make any sense to me.

registerthis
05-08-2007, 02:27 PM
I refuse to assume there was some secret component to the deal that he for some reason couldn't disclose. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Maybe "the plan" is buried in his backyard...

RedEye
05-08-2007, 03:01 PM
I don't think it ignores it. I addressed it when I said that politically, he could not disclose what I suspect to be the driving force of the trade.

Ah yes... and now we're back to the old "secret" political motivations of the deal: the "salary dump" AND "get Austin and Adam to stop spending all their time on PlayStation" argument. Right?

This is every bit as speculative as the anti-Trade argument that suggests we could have gotten better in the deal... except that there are factual events (the concurrent acquisitions of Wickman, Schoenweiss, etc.) to back up the anti-Trade argument while this pro-Trade argument depends on heresy and rumors propagated on RedsZone. I for one know where I'm putting my faith--and it's nothing against RedsZone.

Carin4Narron
05-08-2007, 03:07 PM
kearns vs hamilton, take your pick.

membengal
05-08-2007, 03:09 PM
Carin, that's not the issue, not even close.

RedEye
05-08-2007, 03:21 PM
kearns vs hamilton, take your pick.

Is this sarcasm or just ignorance?

registerthis
05-08-2007, 03:36 PM
kearns vs hamilton, take your pick.

http://www.yellowcakewalk.net/2006-09-11/red_herring.jpg

Ltlabner
05-08-2007, 04:25 PM
Well, I can't deal in the hypothetical "what was WK REALLY thinking", I can only deal in what he says. And he said that deal was intended, in its main component, to help that team win last year. And it certainly didn't do that.

I agree there is hope that the longterm part of it still might be OK (at least, I hold out hope anyway). But that remains an unknown. What IS known is that WK, based on what he said, failed with the first objective of that deal. I refuse to assume there was some secret component to the deal that he for some reason couldn't disclose. That doesn't make any sense to me.

For as much as I was pro-trade I don't think I could buy into that line of reasoning either. The old "top secret info" ploy.

There may well have been issues we weren't aware of (say like Josh Hancock) or somethings that were left out because they would have embrassed a player ("we're trading Lopez because he's a tub of lard who refuses to take infield practice" isn't something you are not likely to hear in the post trade presser).

But the main stated short term goal was made crystal clear. No missing that.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 05:09 PM
Ah yes... and now we're back to the old "secret" political motivations of the deal: the "salary dump" AND "get Austin and Adam to stop spending all their time on PlayStation" argument. Right?

This is every bit as speculative as the anti-Trade argument that suggests we could have gotten better in the deal... except that there are factual events (the concurrent acquisitions of Wickman, Schoenweiss, etc.) to back up the anti-Trade argument while this pro-Trade argument depends on heresy and rumors propagated on RedsZone. I for one know where I'm putting my faith--and it's nothing against RedsZone.

But you keep focusing on "better deal" in terms of who can help in 2006. Wickman is a rent a vet. You can't compare the value of someone who will be under your control for six years (and relatively inexpensive) to Bob Wickman.

The reason he signed these guys rather than a Wickman is a further indication to me that he had the future in mind. The reason I think improving the 2006 Reds was not Krivsky's primary motivation is that the deal only makes sense that way. Krivsky is not an idiot. He understands baseball. Look at some of his pickups - Hamilton, Phillips, Lohse for almost nothing. Look at the Arroyo trade.

You know good and well that he could not admit that the move was for the future. The fanbase, who have been subjected to bad baseball for several years, would not have stood for it.

registerthis
05-08-2007, 05:21 PM
The reason he signed these guys rather than a Wickman is a further indication to me that he had the future in mind.

He likely had both the present *and* future in mind when he made the deal. Trouble was--and remains--that he simply picked the wrong guys.

REDREAD
05-08-2007, 05:25 PM
The Trade didn't cost us the playoffs by itself, but it had a negative impact on the team, which was trying to contend. Maj was useless. Bray had about 3 good weeks and then began to struggle (perhaps from overuse?)

The reasoning that Kearns and Lopez "were getting expensive" doesn't justify giving them away for pennies on the dollar. Dunn is getting expensive, and I sure don't want to trade him for another Maj, even if the team later signed a better bat as a free agent.

The goal of a trade should be to either fill a position of need or increase the overall talent of the team (short term or longterm). The Trade didn't do either. It was a bad trade. No amount of rationalization can change that.

As far as "being better off".. I don't know about that. This team might finish last in the division now. We are getting totally manhandled by the Central this year, despite having a relatively easy schedule. We've sucked against the Rockies and Astros.. not exactly top competition. We are really going to take a beating against tougher competition when we start playing them. So far the only really quality team we've played is Milwaukee.

Sure, this team's struggles this year can't entirely be attributed to the trade, but Maj and Bray aren't even on the roster now, and the pen is the teams biggest weakness.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 05:40 PM
But you can'f fault a spring training line drive on the hand for Bray not being able to help right now. That's like saying the Cards got a bad deal on Josh Hancock because he died. Bray's injury was not anything that was foreseeable.

The Reds might finish last in the division, but it will not be because of the play at SS and the third outfeilder. They are putting up much better numbers than Kearns and Lopez.

Screwball
05-08-2007, 06:04 PM
The reasoning that Kearns and Lopez "were getting expensive" doesn't justify giving them away for pennies on the dollar.


Pennies on the dollar? I find it hard to believe that Bray, Majewski and Thompson (who was absolutely lights out at Dayton) are only worth pennies to Lopez, Kearns and Wagners' collective dollar. The only one performing anywhere near acceptable at Washington is Kearns (.808 OPS, 3 HR and 11 RBI), as Lopez (.609 OPS, 0 HR and 3 RBI, 5 SB with 3 CS, 5 Errors) and Wagner (5.74 ERA, WHIP ~1.75) aren't helping anybody.

Let's see how Bray and Maj come back and perform in a Reds uni, as well as seeing if Thompson can become a solid MLB starter before proclaiming them to be pennies on a dollar.

RedEye
05-08-2007, 06:07 PM
Pennies on the dollar? I find it hard to believe that Bray, Majewski and Thompson (who was absolutely lights out at Dayton) are only worth pennies to Lopez, Kearns and Wagners' collective dollar. The only one performing anywhere near acceptable at Washington is Kearns (.808 OPS, 3 HR and 11 RBI), as Lopez (.609 OPS, 0 HR and 3 RBI, 5 SB with 3 CS, 5 Errors) and Wagner (5.74 ERA, WHIP ~1.75) aren't helping anybody.

Let's see how Bray and Maj come back and perform in a Reds uni, as well as seeing if Thompson can become a solid MLB starter before proclaiming them to be pennies on a dollar.

They were pennies at the time of The Trade. That's all he's saying. Sure, they might increase in value... but a GM has a responsibility to get the best possible return for his chips when he has them.

Krivsky could get lucky with the long term outcome of The Trade, but he better not approach them all that way. Otherwise, he won't be a GM for very long.

REDREAD
05-08-2007, 06:10 PM
But you can'f fault a spring training line drive on the hand for Bray not being able to help right now. That's like saying the Cards got a bad deal on Josh Hancock because he died. Bray's injury was not anything that was foreseeable.

The Reds might finish last in the division, but it will not be because of the play at SS and the third outfeilder. They are putting up much better numbers than Kearns and Lopez.

But if the Reds had actually gotten something useful for Kearns and Lopez, they might not be headed towards the basement.

I don't think anyone cared if KEarns or Lopez was traded for value. That's the point.. we got very little value. Even if Bray was never injured, we still got ripped off big time.

Wayne loves to take risks. That's not necessarily a bad attribute for a GM. Howver, this one burned him badly.

We now have a team in dire straights, with very little talent to trade. I'm guessing EdE will be the next one to go, with Freel taking over 3b. Entirely speculation, but the Reds seemed to be very disenchanted with EdE. Marty was leading the campain to run him out of town, calling his pinch hit HR the other day "pure luck".

REDREAD
05-08-2007, 06:12 PM
Pennies on the dollar? I find it hard to believe that Bray, Majewski and Thompson (who was absolutely lights out at Dayton) are only worth pennies to Lopez, Kearns and Wagners' collective dollar. The only one performing anywhere near acceptable at Washington is Kearns (.808 OPS, 3 HR and 11 RBI), as Lopez (.609 OPS, 0 HR and 3 RBI, 5 SB with 3 CS, 5 Errors) and Wagner (5.74 ERA, WHIP ~1.75) aren't helping anybody.

Let's see how Bray and Maj come back and perform in a Reds uni, as well as seeing if Thompson can become a solid MLB starter before proclaiming them to be pennies on a dollar.

Yes, pennies on a dollar. Kearns alone is worth more than we got.

REDREAD
05-08-2007, 06:17 PM
It's not like we were able to predict the injuries ().

Sure, we could predict the injuires.

Before it was made public that Maj was hurt, there were threads on the board about Maj being overworked and being on the DL earlier in the year.

It's not like Maj's injury was a surprise. He was a very high risk for being hurt.
Wayne didn't care, he made the trade anyhow. Then after the trade blew up in his face, he blamed Bowden and promised to file a grievance which never materialized, and I doubt ever will.

REDREAD
05-08-2007, 06:21 PM
[QUOTE=The Snow Chief;1335118
Thanks for the kind words. I disagree with this proposition. Have you seen Lopez's contract? It is very similar to Gonzo's. We would have been paying about the same per year for Lopez and getting his terrible defense.
.[/QUOTE]


Or we could've traded Kearns and Lopez for something useful, instead of trading them for fill dirt.. That's why people don't like the trade. No one is saying the franchise couldn't replace Lopez.

Screwball
05-08-2007, 06:23 PM
Yes, pennies on a dollar. Kearns alone is worth more than we got.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. Kearns is a good solid player, but he's been often injured and is yet to live up to the superstar hype so many had projected him to be. When your comparables are guys like Craig Monroe, Craig Wilson, and Kevin Mench, I find it hard to believe that he alone should have gotten more than 2 (maybe 3??) promising young pitchers.

REDREAD
05-08-2007, 06:24 PM
I think it is a bit of revisionist history to say that most here knew that Majewski was overvalued and nothing special. .

Go back and read the threads on the day of the trade. Plenty of people here were saying that Maj was overrated and an injury risk. Plenty of people said within 10 minutes of the trade completing that it was going to be a disaster.
No revisionist history at all.

Sure, the Reds' press was blowing sunshine about how great Maj was, but many here thought differently.

REDREAD
05-08-2007, 06:27 PM
What were the specifics of the warnings? Surely know one knew about his injury. Was it that his ERA climbed from .293 to .352 when compared to the season before? While that is not going in the positive direction, it is hard for any ML pitcher to stay under .300 for a career.

See this thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48699&highlight=Majewski

gonelong
05-08-2007, 08:26 PM
What were the specifics of the warnings? Surely know one knew about his injury. Was it that his ERA climbed from .293 to .352 when compared to the season before? While that is not going in the positive direction, it is hard for any ML pitcher to stay under .300 for a career.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1112194&postcount=82



Originally Posted by Redny
Majewski said Monday that he has been suffering from tendinitis since March.
That was news to Reds officials ...




Inexcusable. Completely inexcusable.

I found out Majewski had tendinitis in May as a result of a simple Google search. Maybe the Reds need to sign up for a fantasy baseball league so they can have access to this type of information.

GL

GOREDSGO32
05-08-2007, 08:35 PM
This has been beaten to death 1,000 times. Breaking it down, Reds gave up Lopez and Kearns, but did not lose value at that position by picking up Josh Hamilton and Gonzo. The point of the trade is the Reds could have got something better, than two releivers who have been injured and are currently not even on the team - and Magic, who when he was playing - was horrific (probably due to injury, but who knows?). The Reds could have got more, I think that much is clear. At the very least two proven (non washed up) guys that would be in the bullpen right now with around a 3 ERA would be gold right now.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 08:59 PM
You can't blame the fact that Bray is not currently on the team on the trade. It was a freak injury on a line drive to his hand. The injury was not based on anything discernable at the time of the trade.

Again, that is like saying the Cardinals made a bad move in signing Josh Hancock because he died and is no longer available or blaming the Bengals for David Polluck's neck injury. Sometimes, stuff just happens.

The Snow Chief
05-08-2007, 09:03 PM
Yes, pennies on a dollar. Kearns alone is worth more than we got.

That is yet to be determined. What if Bill Bray is a career .370 era guy out of the bullpen for the Reds and Thompson steps in as a 3rd or 4th starter. Would that be worth Austin Kearns?

AtomicDumpling
05-08-2007, 10:46 PM
I think its funny the trade supporters are so desperate to avoid admitting they were wrong that they now want to claim that Thompson was a key component to the Trade. LOL

A guy has a hot month in single freakin' A ball and all of a sudden he is a super-stud prospect. The guy is 21 years old in low-A Dayton for Pete's sake. He will probably never pitch an inning for the Reds. I hope he becomes a good pitcher but he has a LONG way to go still. The odds are stacked against him.

Even if Bray becomes a premier closer it will still not come close to justifying the Trade.

I don't understand why this is still being debated. Almost every single baseball expert claimed the trade was the biggest ripoff since the Scott Kazmir-Victor Zambrano steal. The sabermetric geeks and the scouts actually even agreed for the first time in history. The trade was lambasted from all corners of the baseball world. Krivsky was humiliated in front of all his peers for getting screwed by the worst GM in baseball.

RedEye
05-08-2007, 10:52 PM
That is yet to be determined. What if Bill Bray is a career .370 era guy out of the bullpen for the Reds and Thompson steps in as a 3rd or 4th starter. Would that be worth Austin Kearns?

Maybe. But I sure wish The Trade had been just that -- AK for Bray and Thompson. That would have been a bad trade, but I could have stomached it a bit better than saying goodbye to FeLo and also bringing in two injury risks, a useless veteran and a journeyman minor league infielder.

You guys can keep trying to sugar coat this deal all you want. Your arguments just don't hold water.

DTCromer
05-08-2007, 11:53 PM
I think its funny the trade supporters are so desperate to avoid admitting they were wrong that they now want to claim that Thompson was a key component to the Trade. LOL

Ohhh what a year makes. We make the same deal now and Krivsky is a genius. I still liked the trade no matter what anyone says because we got rid of some of the most overrated players on our team. We basically get rid of Lopez who has shown his hitting is slipping and his fielding isn worse than ever. We get rid of Kearns, who is average at best, and replace him with Hamilton. I'd say this wasn't a bad deal at all.

Unlike a lot of the people who hated the trade, I actually looked at the longterm and thought it was great. Unfortunately, it's a "what have you done for me lately?" society.

AmarilloRed
05-09-2007, 01:24 AM
I say we wait and see how the relievers perform after they return from their injuries. Majewski was injured last year, so he didnt play at his best . Bray pitched pretty well in the bullpen and I look forward to seeing him pitch well again. Until then, I will reserve judgement on how the trade turned out. We could really use both of them at this time.

REDREAD
05-09-2007, 07:57 AM
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. Kearns is a good solid player, but he's been often injured and is yet to live up to the superstar hype so many had projected him to be. When your comparables are guys like Craig Monroe, Craig Wilson, and Kevin Mench, I find it hard to believe that he alone should have gotten more than 2 (maybe 3??) promising young pitchers.

And Maj was an injury waiting to happen (that did). If you knock Kearns for his injuries, you have to knock Maj too. Bray was an advanced prospect.. time will tell how he pans out, but he's looking to be around average.
This is a far cry from the two "setup quality" relievers Wayne thought he was getting.

As far as the "we're better without them" argument, we are still sorely missing a solid RH bat.

The Snow Chief
05-09-2007, 08:01 AM
I don't know that Bray is looking to be about average. He was probably the Nats best pitching prospect and pitched better than MLB average in his rookie season.

The Snow Chief
05-09-2007, 08:07 AM
I think its funny the trade supporters are so desperate to avoid admitting they were wrong that they now want to claim that Thompson was a key component to the Trade. LOL

A guy has a hot month in single freakin' A ball and all of a sudden he is a super-stud prospect. The guy is 21 years old in low-A Dayton for Pete's sake. He will probably never pitch an inning for the Reds. I hope he becomes a good pitcher but he has a LONG way to go still. The odds are stacked against him.

Even if Bray becomes a premier closer it will still not come close to justifying the Trade.

I don't understand why this is still being debated. Almost every single baseball expert claimed the trade was the biggest ripoff since the Scott Kazmir-Victor Zambrano steal. The sabermetric geeks and the scouts actually even agreed for the first time in history. The trade was lambasted from all corners of the baseball world. Krivsky was humiliated in front of all his peers for getting screwed by the worst GM in baseball.

Wow. Just wow. If Bray becomes the next premier closer you are saying it would not come close to justifying the trade. I know many Reds fans over-valued Kearns and Lopez but I can't believe I read that.

Caveman Techie
05-09-2007, 08:33 AM
Snow Chief, that ignores that WK himself said the major reason for that deal last summer was to help the team "win now". No easy way to ignore that...

Membengal, you are ignoring the fact that the trade was not ONLY for last year. If it was then WK would have traded for a Wickman type hired gun. But that is not what he did. He went after young, cheap pitching that they will have control of for years to come. WK even made a comment to that last year at the time of the trade so it was NOT only for the here and now.

I'm not disputing the fact that the trade did not help the Reds get in the playoffs. But the anti-trade crowd continually (as Snow Chief pointed out and others said "I've never seen that") that it was a total failure because it didn't get the Reds in the playoffs in 2006.

We still don't know how the overall trade grade will come out. I hope that Bray turns in to a lights out closer and Maj becomes a good setup man, but that still remains to be seen.

membengal
05-09-2007, 08:55 AM
You are putting words in my post (or rather, chopping it out of context). I said in one of these others on here that the jury is still out on the long-term component of it (and that I am hoping against hope that part pans out), but there is no question, per WK's own words, that it was a massive failure with respect to his major stated objective for 2006---improving the pen.

None of that will ever change my view that the immediate return, the actual players, far undersold the value of Kearns and Lopez.

registerthis
05-09-2007, 09:49 AM
Ohhh what a year makes. We make the same deal now and Krivsky is a genius.

By whose standards?

It was a dumb move last year, it would be a dumb move now.

registerthis
05-09-2007, 10:01 AM
I don't know that Bray is looking to be about average. He was probably the Nats best pitching prospect and pitched better than MLB average in his rookie season.

Here's the thing with middle relief pitchers--they can be wildly inconsistent from year to year. A player can come out of nowhere and set the world on fire one season, then come back the next and get it handed to him on a plate.

To an extent, I agree about Bray--he *might* morph into a top-of-the-line reliever, and be a fixture in the pen for years to come. Conversely, there are indications that he may never be anything more than average. He's prone to walk a goodly number of guys and gives up a fair amount of hits, for example. And he was less than successful during his brief stint with the reds last year.

And that, really, is the biggest problem with this deal--it essentially comes down to Bill Bray. He, more than any other player obtained in the trade, has the upside and potential to be an above-average pitcher. But we're basing that assessment on a whopping 50 innings pitched last year.

The trade's been an unequivocal disaster up to this point. For the Reds to salvage any modicum of respectability out of the deal, they desperately need Bray to come back with a vengeance and prove that he was worth the pirce we paid to get him. And that's a rather heavy burden to place on the shoulders of a player with a grand total of one season and 50 innings of major league experience.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 10:48 AM
I don't know that Bray is looking to be about average. He was probably the Nats best pitching prospect and pitched better than MLB average in his rookie season.

Ryan Wagner pitched better than MLB average in his rookie season as well.

REDREAD
05-09-2007, 10:58 AM
I don't know that Bray is looking to be about average. He was probably the Nats best pitching prospect and pitched better than MLB average in his rookie season.

From what I saw of him last year, I think he's about average.

There's value in an average (or slightly above average), cheap LH out of the pen, but Bray was not nearly worth what we paid for him.

Of course, I hope he becomes the next BJ Ryan (without the injury), but I'm not holding my breath.

Always Red
05-09-2007, 11:11 AM
There's value in an average (or slightly above average), cheap LH out of the pen, but Bray was not nearly worth what we paid for him.

Of course, I hope he becomes the next BJ Ryan (without the injury), but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't know for sure but I've read here (that makes it gospel truth, right?;) ) that Bray was once a #1 draft pick. If that's right, then he hasn't proven to be worth the #1 pick that the (then) Expos made for him, either. If you're a #1 pick pitcher, you've gotta be a SP or a closer to be worth that kind of pick.

OK, I got off my lazy rear and looked it up; Bray was the first pick of the Expos in the 2004 draft (13th overall pick). See, what you read here often is gospel truth! (I'll never doubt again :laugh: )

Now I hope Bill Bray can come back and be the closer for this team, but he hasn't shown that he has that in him yet.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 11:26 AM
I don't know for sure but I've read here (that makes it gospel truth, right?;) ) that Bray was once a #1 draft pick. If that's right, then he hasn't proven to be worth the #1 pick that the (then) Expos made for him, either. If you're a #1 pick pitcher, you've gotta be a SP or a closer to be worth that kind of pick.

OK, I got off my lazy rear and looked it up; Bray was the first pick of the Expos in the 2004 draft (13th overall pick). See, what you read here often is gospel truth! (I'll never doubt again :laugh: )

Now I hope Bill Bray can come back and be the closer for this team, but he hasn't shown that he has that in him yet.

Wagner was the Reds #1 pick in 2003.

Bray looks like a left-handed Ryan Wagner to me.

The Snow Chief
05-09-2007, 11:31 AM
Wagner was the Reds #1 pick in 2003.

Bray looks like a left-handed Ryan Wagner to me.

Based on what? It appears to be wishful thinking so you can say I told you so with the trade.

membengal
05-09-2007, 11:38 AM
Why would Footstool need to say "I told you so" with regard to the trade? His feelings on that trade, like most of ours, are already well documented. Any Reds fan is rooting like heck for Bray, Maj and Thompson not to suck, but whether they ever achieve non-suckiness or not, it still won't save that deal from being what it was---a short-term disaster.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 12:03 PM
Based on what? It appears to be wishful thinking so you can say I told you so with the trade.

Based on track record in the minors and majors, and based on Reds fans' expectations ("This kid could be the closer of the future" syndrome). They have similar K/9 and K/BB ratios. I'm not saying they're completely parallel, but they are similar. Bray received more minor-league seasoning, but still didn't dominate.

Projecting Bray as a future lights-out closer is more wishful thinking than comparing him to Wagner.

And I have plenty of other, better reasons to say "I told you so" about the trade, if that's what I wanted to do.

The Snow Chief
05-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Why would Footstool need to say "I told you so" with regard to the trade? His feelings on that trade, like most of ours, are already well documented. Any Reds fan is rooting like heck for Bray, Maj and Thompson not to suck, but whether they ever achieve non-suckiness or not, it still won't save that deal from being what it was---a short-term disaster.

Feelings are well documented. Validation of those feelings, however, will not come until we see how he develops.

I can't fathom how anyone would say that he looks like a Ryan Wagner. Because he pitched well in his first season? By that standard, you could say that about any pitcher who starts well.

AtomicDumpling
05-09-2007, 01:31 PM
I think you will have a very hard time convincing the people here at Redszone that The Trade was anything but a disaster. I think 90% of the people here agree it was a huge blunder on Krivsky's part. Around the rest of the league 99% of people think the Reds got screwed to historic proportions.

The folks as Baseball Prospectus were apoplectic over the trade. They were aghast that Krivsky would get raped by the likes of Jim freakin' Bowden.

Most articles written about The Trade compared it to some of the worst trades in the last 25 years. The general conclusions were it was the most lopsided trade other than the Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir trade in the last 10 years. It is pretty hard to defend against that landslide of opinion momentum.

With the unfolding of events since The Trade was announced it appears even more lopsided now than it did then.

Always Red
05-09-2007, 01:45 PM
Evaluating a baseball trade is very much like evaluating an NFL draft, IMO.

I know Krivsky made the statement that the trade was made in order to "win now," but baseball types say a lot of things other than what they really mean, so I don't know if he really meant that or not. Certainly, if you take his statement at face value, the trade was a failure in that regard.

Tough to do, but I think you need to wait about 5 years, look back and reconsider the trade at a much later date, similar to evaluating an NFL draft. Then you can really see if one side was raked or not, or if it actually was a win-win for both teams. There doesn't necessarily need to be a "loser" in a trade.

AtomicDumpling
05-09-2007, 02:03 PM
Evaluating a baseball trade is very much like evaluating an NFL draft, IMO.

I know Krivsky made the statement that the trade was made in order to "win now," but baseball types say a lot of things other than what they really mean, so I don't know if he really meant that or not. Certainly, if you take his statement at face value, the trade was a failure in that regard.

Tough to do, but I think you need to wait about 5 years, look back and reconsider the trade at a much later date, similar to evaluating an NFL draft. Then you can really see if one side was raked or not, or if it actually was a win-win for both teams. There doesn't necessarily need to be a "loser" in a trade.

I agree to some extent, but there is one major point you are not considering.

Since the trade failed to improve the team last year the only remaining possible way to redeem this trade is if the prospects we acquired turn out to be good players -- hopefully better than the good players we traded traded to get them.

We got one decent relief prospect in Bray and one long-shot prospect in Thompson. If one or both of them turn out well then the trade won't have been a complete, utter disaster -- just a mere bad trade.

The point everyone here has made is that we should have received multiple solid prospects with major upside in exchange for Kearns, Lopez and Wagner. So we can say with certainty the Trade was a bad deal because we did not get the fair value for the players we traded.

Think of it like buying lottery tickets. If a lottery ticket normally costs $2 but you buy it for $1 then you got a good deal. You don't have to wait to see if the lottery ticket is a winner to evaluate whether it was good deal. Prospects are like lottery tickets -- nobody can accurately predict whether they will turn out to be good players. So the goal is to obtain as many good prospects as possible with the hope that a few of them develop into good players. So if you only get 2 good prospects when you could have gotten 5 good prospects then you did not get a good deal even if one or both of your 2 prospects pans out.

registerthis
05-09-2007, 02:07 PM
I know Krivsky made the statement that the trade was made in order to "win now," but baseball types say a lot of things other than what they really mean, so I don't know if he really meant that or not.

If it wasn't meant to "win now", then I *really* question the timing. If the trade was for 3-4 years down the road, why on Earth pull the trigger when the price was as high as it was ever going to be?

Always Red
05-09-2007, 02:10 PM
I agree to some extent, but there is one major point you are not considering.
...

We got one decent relief prospect in Bray and one long-shot prospect in Thompson. If one or both of them turn out well then the trade won't have been a complete, utter disaster -- just a mere bad trade.



One thing you're not considering regardless if Bray and Thompson both came through (and Majewski recovers to be a serviceable MR), is what if Kearns and Lopez both wind up being average to below average players, in the long run?

I've gone both ways on this trade. I was aghast, as most of us were, on that day last July. I tried really hard to Krivsky's side of it all winter, and now I realize it's a moot point, the guys who have replaced Lopez and Kearns (both of whom I liked) are better ballplayers (IMO). So, that's why I say the only way you can decide if there is a winner is to wait and see how it all pans out.:dunno:

Screwball
05-09-2007, 02:15 PM
If it wasn't meant to "win now", then I *really* question the timing. If the trade was for 3-4 years down the road, why on Earth pull the trigger when the price was as high as it was ever going to be?

I was under the impression it was to both win now and in the future. It may not have paid off as we all hoped it would last year, but guys walking to the plate with broomsticks in their hands in September certainly didn't help anything.

Also, the relievers we acquired are still young (Bray-23, Maj-27, Thompson-21). There's still a chance (a good one IMO) they turn out to be solid additions to a bullpen that's currently in shambles.

AtomicDumpling
05-09-2007, 02:19 PM
One thing you're not considering regardless if Bray and Thompson both came through (and Majewski recovers to be a serviceable MR), is what if Kearns and Lopez both wind up being average to below average players, in the long run?

I've gone both ways on this trade. I was aghast, as most of us were, on that day last July. I tried really hard to Krivsky's side of it all winter, and now I realize it's a moot point, the guys who have replaced Lopez and Kearns (both of whom I liked) are better ballplayers (IMO). So, that's why I say the only way you can decide if there is a winner is to wait and see how it all pans out.:dunno:

It wasn't a matter of either keeping Kearns and Lopez or making The Trade. Nobody is objecting to trading Kearns and Lopez. The point is to maximize the return value. We could have gotten much better players back.

The trade has nothing to do with the guys that replaced Kearns and Lopez. We could have those guys even if we just cut or released Kearns and Lopez. So it doesn't make sense to claim The Trade was a good one simply because we signed Gonzalez as a free agent and picked up Hamilton in the Rule 5 draft.

The team we have now is much inferior to the team we had on July 10th of 2006. Things are going in the wrong direction.

Always Red
05-09-2007, 02:31 PM
It wasn't a matter of either keeping Kearns and Lopez or making The Trade. Nobody is objecting to trading Kearns and Lopez. The point is to maximize the return value. We could have gotten much better players back.

The trade has nothing to do with the guys that replaced Kearns and Lopez. We could have those guys even if we just cut or released Kearns and Lopez. So it doesn't make sense to claim The Trade was a good one simply because we signed Gonzalez as a free agent and picked up Hamilton in the Rule 5 draft.

The team we have now is much inferior to the team we had on July 10th of 2006. Things are going in the wrong direction.

I disagree that this team is much inferior. I think it's about the same, and I feel like the Reds are kind of spinning their wheels, swapping parts around and not getting anywhere.

My intent is not to defend The Trade. I haven't said on this thread if it was a good one or a bad one, my opinion is that we need to wait to make that judgement.

I thought at the time, and I've read here over and over that we could have gotten much better players back. But how do we know? Maybe Krivsky shopped those guys all over the league, and this was the best he could do? I don't know, and neither do you, unless you have inside info and if you do, cough it up :D . Unless or until it comes out that someone else had made a different or better offer, you really can't say that they could have got more.

Both of those guys were at the point where they were getting ready to make bigger money. The entire league had seen Lopez play defense and I suspect they were not impressed. Kearns? Who knows, he could still be great, or he could wash out, or he could have just a middling career. I am still a fan of Austin's and check his stats out weekly or so. Austin's whole problem as it seems to me, is that he doesn't really have a passion for the game. He's got all the talent in the world; maybe the FO was tired of trying to squeeze it out of him?

pedro
05-09-2007, 02:32 PM
The team we have now is much inferior to the team we had on July 10th of 2006. Things are going in the wrong direction.


Record aside, I don't buy it. If the guys we have are doing better than Lopez & Kearns (and they are) how would having those two guys make this team better?

Ltlabner
05-09-2007, 02:57 PM
The team we have now is much inferior to the team we had on July 10th of 2006. Things are going in the wrong direction.

Hummmm let's see.

Gonzo at SS so we actually get to see most plays made and not booted/thrown into the stands. So far his stick has been a nice suprise (although I know it's unlikely to last).

Jr sucessfully moved to RF without a total team meltdown.

EE still playing most games and developing out at 3B.

Dunn not traded away because he K's too much.

Hamilton's development has pushed Freel back into super-sub role.

The three headed catching monster is gone.

Harrang and Arroyo locked into reasonable LTCs.

Belisle and Loshe are still huge question marks but are earning my confidence much quicker than say Dave Williams and that other guy last year.

The bullpen is......uh......well. You got me there. :) No argument there, the bullpen is a disaster.

But go over the list above, are those not improvements over 2006?

peterose00
05-09-2007, 03:00 PM
The point everyone here has made is that we should have received multiple solid prospects with major upside in exchange for Kearns, Lopez and Wagner. So we can say with certainty the Trade was a bad deal because we did not get the fair value for the players we traded.

Only a Cincinnati fan would make that statement -- and while I appreciate it because I am a fan of the Reds as well. But no where else in America would anyone agree that Kearns, Lopez and Wagner should bring multiple solid prospects -- better than who we got.

Let's call a spade a spade. Kearns was a promising outfielder who never achieved his promise -- was looking at arbitration and a big raise. Lopez had one good half season, made tha all-star team and then had 1 1/2 years of average to poor offensive production and severely below average defense (at SS). Lopez was also looking at a huge pay raise comparative to what he had been making previously. Wagner was ineefective whether he was pitching in Cincinnati or Louisville after numerous chances.

No where other than Cincinnati were these three guys thought of as highly as they are now written about here. Two of the three were intregral parts of a team that hadn't been very good for a while then.

If anyone is speaking with 20-20 hindsight, it is the trade naysayers -- because certainly no one could have predicted Majewski being damaged goods when he came over, no one could predict Bray's injury and those same nay sayers are choosing to be blind to Thompson's achievements at Dayton (better than homer Bailey did there).

It is really too bad that these guys didn't help out in the pennant push last year -- but that doesn't make Krivsky wrong or the trade bad. Yeah, Krivsky could've made the deal for different people, but that is no assurance that those people would've performed any better or any worse either.

The question I am wanting to see answered is what would have Kearns and/or Lopez done to help towards that goal -- last year or this year? From what they have shown since the trade -- they are both just more expensive versions of their former selves (if even as good as their former selves). Who would want more of what we had at a higher price?

Always Red
05-09-2007, 03:07 PM
Who would want more of what we had at a higher price?

good question!

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 03:10 PM
Only a Cincinnati fan would make that statement -- and while I appreciate it because I am a fan of the Reds as well. But no where else in America would anyone agree that Kearns, Lopez and Wagner should bring multiple solid prospects -- better than who we got.



Except for all the media and baseball fans who don't follow the Reds, but still agree that Krivsky got jobbed. Which is basically everyone.

Reds fans are pretty much alone in their attempts to rationalize the deal, though.



If anyone is speaking with 20-20 hindsight, it is the trade naysayers -- because certainly no one could have predicted Majewski being damaged goods when he came over

Except for the posters who pointed out when the deal happened that Majewski had been on the DL with shoulder problems earlier that season. And apparenly, if Krivsky would have done his due diligence and waited for Majewski's medical records before consummating the deal, he would have known about Maj's bum shoulder.


It is really too bad that these guys didn't help out in the pennant push last year

Yeah, it is a shame, considering the fact that the pennant push was *the main reason for making the trade in mid-July instead of waiting until the deadline or the offseason.*

AtomicDumpling
05-09-2007, 03:17 PM
Record aside, I don't buy it. If the guys we have are doing better than Lopez & Kearns (and they are) how would having those two guys make this team better?

The reason we have a better shortstop now is because we had to blow our entire free agent budget to sign one becuase The Trade left a gaping hole at that position.

Nobody says we should still have Kearns and Lopez. We only say we should have gotten something valuable in return. That is the point you guys just don't seem to understand.

1. We would have Gonzalez even if we had released Lopez.
2. We would have Hamilton whether or not we had traded or kept Kearns.

The fact remains that we gave away two valuable players for very little or nothing in return. How can you possibly justify that?

It doesn't make any sense to use this reasoning:
Since Hamilton is better than Kearns and Gonzalez is better than Lopez therefore The Trade was a good move.

Since neither Hamilton nor Gonzalez was obtained in the trade that logic is faulty.

It would make more sense to say this:
Since we traded Kearns and Lopez for some valuable prospects we were able to insert into our starting lineup two players we picked up via other means -- Hamilton and Gonzalez. The only problem with this is the "valuable prospects" turn out to be one decent relief prospect and a long-shot minor leaguer.

Wouldn't you rather have some big-time stud prospects instead of some "maybe" bullpen help? Players like Kearns and Lopez can be traded for much more valuable prospects than middle relievers. Kearns is an above average starting right fielder with upside, and Lopez is an All-Star shortstop with upside for crying out loud. Middle relievers are a dime a dozen.

We traded problem-child Jose Guillen for Aaron Harang. Guillen was not as valuable as Kearns nor Lopez -- much less both of them together.

We traded extra outfielder Wily Mo Pena for Bronson Arroyo. Pena was not as valuable as Kearns nor Lopez -- much less both of them together.

We obtained proven closer Eddie Guardado for fringe prospect Travis Chick. Guardado is a much better player than anyone we got in The Trade and we got him for a song.

The list of examples is very long. Players much better than Bray and Majewski were obtained last year in exchange for players much inferior to Kearns and Lopez.

I would much rather have prospects the likes of Harang and Arroyo than Bray and Majewski, wouldn't you? That is what we could (should) have gotten in exchange for Kearns and Lopez and Wagner. That is why The Trade will live in infamy for many years.

We could be saying this if a good trade had been made:
"We picked up Hamilton and Gonzalez to go along with the two good starting pitchers and 3 prospects we obtained in the Trade. So while we will miss Kearns and Lopez we will enjoy the bounty we received in the trade along with the free agent shortstop and Rule 5 draftee."

The explanation for The Trade is that Krivsky panicked about the bullpen and in effort to find a quick fix he drastically overpaid. It might have been excusable if the quick fix had worked to improve the bullpen. Not only did it not work but it actually made the bullpen worse. Majewski was absolutely horrible for the Reds, and Bray was average at best in only a few innings. The offense collapsed soon after The Trade as well.

It was the worst trade the Reds have made in at least 30 years. It was the second worst trade in all of baseball for at least the last 10 years.

peterose00
05-09-2007, 03:17 PM
Hummmm let's see.

Gonzo at SS so we actually get to see most plays made and not booted/thrown into the stands. So far his stick has been a nice suprise (although I know it's unlikely to last).

Jr sucessfully moved to RF without a total team meltdown.

EE still playing most games and developing out at 3B.

Dunn not traded away because he K's too much.

Hamilton's development has pushed Freel back into super-sub role.

The three headed catching monster is gone.

Harrang and Arroyo locked into reasonable LTCs.

Belisle and Loshe are still huge question marks but are earning my confidence much quicker than say Dave Williams and that other guy last year.

The bullpen is......uh......well. You got me there. :) No argument there, the bullpen is a disaster.

But go over the list above, are those not improvements over 2006?


These are all such good points. I was going to post essentially the same thoughts backing up my last thought -- but this is so well stated.

Those same people who want to crucify Krivsky for the Kearns and Lopez trade are not willing to give him any credit for replacing them and making the team so much better.....at less cost.

Is there anyone on the planet who would choose to have Kearns over Hamilton? Is there anyoe who would choose Lopez over AGonz?

This team is so much better now than the one in 2006 it isn't funny + so is the rest of the organization. The thing that gets lost is how Krivsky has rebuilt what was a near dead-last place overall organization and restocked it with good young players throughout. The Reds are ranked much higher right now in terms of the prospects we have in the minors over where we were (certainly under Bowden) and an improvement beyond what O'Brien began to put in place.

Add in thoe facts you shared above and it is obvious that Krivsky is doing an excellent job. I know for a fact that Bob Castellini is totally pleased with the job Krivsky has done/is doing.

AtomicDumpling
05-09-2007, 03:23 PM
Only a Cincinnati fan would make that statement -- and while I appreciate it because I am a fan of the Reds as well. But no where else in America would anyone agree that Kearns, Lopez and Wagner should bring multiple solid prospects -- better than who we got.



I can't believe this statement. LOL

Cincinnati fans are the only ones trying to justify the trade. Everyone else in baseball realizes The Trade was a horrible mistake. It was the 2nd-most lopsided trade in the whole league over the past 10 years is what most people believe. Only the Victor Zambrano-Scott Kazmir trade was more lopsided.

Go back and read all the articles at the time of the trade. Read Baseball Prospectus 2007. Read the Hardball Times Annual Review. Read all the columns on ESPN.com. Read the Sporting News. Everyone knows the Reds got raped.

Always Red
05-09-2007, 03:25 PM
The reason we have a better shortstop now is because we had to blow our entire free agent budget to sign one becuase The Trade left a gaping hole at that position.

Nobody says we should still have Kearns and Lopez. We only say we should have gotten something valuable in return. That is the point you guys just don't seem to understand.

1. We would have Gonzalez even if we had released Lopez.
2. We would have Hamilton whether or not we had traded or kept Kearns.

The fact remains that we gave away two valuable players for very little or nothing in return. How can you possibly justify that?

It doesn't make any sense to use this reasoning:
Since Hamilton is better than Kearns and Gonzalez is better than Lopez therefore The Trade was a good move.

Since neither Hamilton nor Gonzalez was obtained in the trade that logic is faulty.

It would make more sense to say this:
Since we traded Kearns and Lopez for some valuable prospects we were able to insert into our starting lineup two players we picked up via other means -- Hamilton and Gonzalez. The only problem with this is the "valuable prospects" turn out to be one decent relief prospect and a long-shot minor leaguer.

Wouldn't you rather have some big-time stud prospects instead of some "maybe" bullpen help? Players like Kearns and Lopez can be traded for much more valuable prospects than middle relievers. Kearns is an above average starting right fielder with upside, and Lopez is an All-Star shortstop with upside for crying out loud. Middle relievers are a dime a dozen.

We traded problem-child Jose Guillen for Aaron Harang. Guillen was not as valuable as Kearns nor Lopez -- much less both of them together.

We traded extra outfielder Wily Mo Pena for Bronson Arroyo. Pena was not as valuable as Kearns nor Lopez -- much less both of them together.

We obtained proven closer Eddie Guardado for fringe prospect Travis Chick. Guardado is a much better player than anyone we got in The Trade and we got him for a song.

The list of examples is very long. Players much better than Bray and Majewski were obtained last year in exchange for players much inferior to Kearns and Lopez.

I would much rather have prospects the likes of Harang and Arroyo than Bray and Majewski, wouldn't you? That is what we could (should) have gotten in exchange for Kearns and Lopez and Wagner. That is why The Trade will live in infamy for many years.

We could be saying this if a good trade had been made:
"We picked up Hamilton and Gonzalez to go along with the two good starting pitchers and 3 prospects we obtained in the Trade. So while we will miss Kearns and Lopez we will enjoy the bounty we received in the trade along with the free agent shortstop and Rule 5 draftee."

The explanation for The Trade is that Krivsky panicked about the bullpen and in effort to find a quick fix he drastically overpaid. It might have been excusable if the quick fix had worked to improve the bullpen. Not only did it not work but it actually made the bullpen worse. Majewski was absolutely horrible for the Reds, and Bray was average at best in only a few innings. The offense collapsed soon after The Trade as well.

It was the worst trade the Reds have made in at least 30 years. It was the second worst trade in all of baseball for at least the last 10 years.

AD, you keep talking about how valuable Kearns and Lopez are, and the last few posts here have been asking for proof of that. You argue well, and passionately, why the trade was a bust, you make one assumption that I don't agree with- that those guys were all that valuable to begin with. Krivsky has shown that he's not a total idiot; surely he shopped around before making his purchase.

You may be right; but I'd like more time before I decide if it's a bust, a winner, or just ok for both sides.

I think peterose00 is right on; we overvalued those guys here, especially for what they were going to be due in the next year.

AtomicDumpling
05-09-2007, 03:29 PM
These are all such good points. I was going to post essentially the same thoughts backing up my last thought -- but this is so well stated.

Those same people who want to crucify Krivsky for the Kearns and Lopez trade are not willing to give him any credit for replacing them and making the team so much better.....at less cost.

Is there anyone on the planet who would choose to have Kearns over Hamilton? Is there anyoe who would choose Lopez over AGonz?

This team is so much better now than the one in 2006 it isn't funny + so is the rest of the organization. The thing that gets lost is how Krivsky has rebuilt what was a near dead-last place overall organization and restocked it with good young players throughout. The Reds are ranked much higher right now in terms of the prospects we have in the minors over where we were (certainly under Bowden) and an improvement beyond what O'Brien began to put in place.

Add in thoe facts you shared above and it is obvious that Krivsky is doing an excellent job. I know for a fact that Bob Castellini is totally pleased with the job Krivsky has done/is doing.

You just don't get it. We could have Kearns and Hamilton. We could have Gonzalez and Lopez. They weren't traded for each other were they? Those were completely separate transactions! Can't you understand that?

If you would rather keep Hamilton than Kearns (instead of keeping both), then you trade Kearns for something that improves the team -- don't just foolishly give him away for nothing and say it was smart because Hamilton is better than Kearns.

Same with Lopez.

We gave Kearns and Lopez away for free.

If you buy a new car do you just give your old one away? No. You sell it for the best deal you can get. We bought a new shortstop and gave the old one away for free. Foolish.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 03:29 PM
Those same people who want to crucify Krivsky for the Kearns and Lopez trade are not willing to give him any credit for replacing them and making the team so much better.....at less cost.

Is there anyone on the planet who would choose to have Kearns over Hamilton? Is there anyoe who would choose Lopez over AGonz?



I never get tired of hearing the same arguments over and over.

It's a leap in logic to assume that the trade led directly to Krivsky acquiring Hamilton and Gonzalez.

Hamilton was a rule-5 pickup. Even if Kearns was still a Red, Hamilton could have replaced Hopper or Denorfia on the roster.

Lopez and Kearns both could have been traded at the deadline or in the offseason. That wouldn't have prevented Krivsky from signing Gonzalez or acquiring Hamilton.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 03:32 PM
AD, you keep talking about how valuable Kearns and Lopez are, and the last few posts here have been asking for proof of that. You argue well, and passionately, why the trade was a bust, you make one assumption that I don't agree with- that those guys were all that valuable to begin with. Krivsky has shown that he's not a total idiot; surely he shopped around before making his purchase.


Lopez was coming off an All-Star year. He was in the top 10 in MLB in OPS at his position at the time of the trade.

Kearns was a highly-touted prospect who was in the top 10 in MLB in OPS at his position at the time of the trade.

Both players had real value.

People who rationalize the trade tend to ignore those facts.

AtomicDumpling
05-09-2007, 03:32 PM
AD, you keep talking about how valuable Kearns and Lopez are, and the last few posts here have been asking for proof of that. You argue well, and passionately, why the trade was a bust, you make one assumption that I don't agree with- that those guys were all that valuable to begin with. Krivsky has shown that he's not a total idiot; surely he shopped around before making his purchase.

You may be right; but I'd like more time before I decide if it's a bust, a winner, or just ok for both sides.

I think peterose00 is right on; we overvalued those guys here, especially for what they were going to be due in the next year.

I have given you plenty of examples of why Kearns and Lopez should have garnered more in trade value. How many more examples do you want?

Players inferior to Kearns and Lopez are routinely traded for players better than Bray and Majewski. Proven fact.

pedro
05-09-2007, 03:34 PM
Lopez was coming off an All-Star year. He was in the top 10 in MLB in OPS at his position at the time of the trade.

People who rationalize the trade tend to ignore those facts.

Lopez has and had no business playing SS so his relative value is much less than you'd think.

Ltlabner
05-09-2007, 03:37 PM
Lopez was coming off an All-Star year. He was in the top 10 in MLB in OPS at his position at the time of the trade.

Kearns was a highly-touted prospect who was in the top 10 in MLB in OPS at his position at the time of the trade.

Both players had real value.

People who rationalize the trade tend to ignore those facts.

Lopez was comming off his 1st and only all-star year. And the first half of 2006 didn't exactly look all-star to me. His bat was slowly comming around so the batting line looked ok at the end, but there was plenty of dead spots in that first half. Booting and throwing balls into the stands has to count for something. It's not all OPS.

Kearns was a highly-touted prospect. With plenty of injuries, lost playing time, a recient trip to Louisville, and a lot of Ks.

I'm not saying those are legitmate complaints, but any GM worth a tinkers damn is going to point these things out during negotiations. They aren't just going to say, "ohhhh top 10 OPS, sign me up".

The trade was still a short-term disaster, but let's try to be somewhat objective about their value.

Aronchis
05-09-2007, 03:49 PM
Only Maj was actually brought for 2006. Bray was essentially a rookie and wasn't going to counted on for major production.

Hence you have the two sides:
1.Maj's impact on the 2006 team
2.Bray and Thompson's impact on the Reds future

So the deal wasn't just about now, it was about the future. Krivsky slipping a rebuilding deal under our noses.

Krivsky thought he was being smart and stealing 2 good arms and a dependable reliever from the Nats. That is why you hear Wayne cry about Maj's health, the one side of the plan counted on for 2006, busted badly. He feels cheated.

If Bray turns into a dependable 7/8 reliever and Thompson into a good starting pitching prospect by next year, it doesn't look as bad. Matter of fact, Bowden would be blamed for reducing pitching depth for 2 overly expensive average ballplayers. But the Maj side of the trade is already a flop, which is what everybody is talking about.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 03:50 PM
Lopez was comming off his 1st and only all-star year. And the first half of 2006 didn't exactly look all-star to me. His bat was slowly comming around so the batting line looked ok at the end, but there was plenty of dead spots in that first half. Booting and throwing balls into the stands has to count for something. It's not all OPS.

Kearns was a highly-touted prospect. With plenty of injuries, lost playing time, a recient trip to Louisville, and a lot of Ks.

I'm not saying those are legitmate complaints, but any GM worth a tinkers damn is going to point these things out during negotiations. They aren't just going to say, "ohhhh top 10 OPS, sign me up".

The trade was still a short-term disaster, but let's try to be somewhat objective about their value.

What's unobjective about pointing out facts? I'm not saying they didn't have warts. I didn't claim either was a gold glover or perennial silver slugger (although Lopez did win a silver slugger in '05).

GMs constantly pay players for what they did last year, or two years ago, so pooh-poohing Lopez's stellar 2005 certainly qualifies at "unobjective."

I think the trade rationalizers are going out of their way to undervalue Kearns and Lopez. You'd think the trade rationalizers were representing teams in arbitration hearings or something.


Only Maj was actually brought for 2006. Bray was essentially a rookie and wasn't going to counted on for major production.

Hence you have the two sides:
1.Maj's impact on the 2006 team
2.Bray and Thompson's impact on the Reds future

So the deal wasn't just about now, it was about the future. Krivsky slipping a rebuilding deal under our noses.

Then why make the deal in mid-July? Why not wait until the trade deadline, or the offseason? And why tell the media and fans you're shoring up the bullpen for a playoff run?

The deal was indeed for 2006 and for the future. Bray and Maj were both going to help fix the Reds bullpen and get the team into the playoffs. The deal failed miserably in that respect.

As for the future, that will unfold, but whatever happens won't erase the failure of 2006.

Always Red
05-09-2007, 03:57 PM
The trade was still a short-term disaster, but let's try to be somewhat objective about their value.

I agree, for all the reasons you listed above, abner.

I absolutely agree the trade was a short term utter failure.

It may be long term, as well, but I think it's too early to decide.

I remain unconvinced that Kearns and Lopez are as good as we all thought they were prior to the trade. I don't hear either of them getting any national buzz now, none at all. Neither of them are really All Star quality. Lopez, I understand, made it one time, and Kearns still has promise, but it's time for him to produce.

Lopez, particularly, may have looked as good as he did for the same reason Gonzo is looking good right now, GABP effect?

Again, I'm not arguing that the trade was horrible or good for the Reds. I think it's just darn early to decide, and it's a moot point, anyway.

But it's fun to argue about!:D :beerme:

Ltlabner
05-09-2007, 04:00 PM
GMs constantly pay players for what they did last year, or two years ago, so pooh-poohing Lopez's stellar 2005 certainly qualifies at "unobjective."

Are you so nieve as to think a GM isn't going to point out a players warts in an attempt to drive down their asking price?

Or that they will whip out their BP annual, only look up the OPS and then start writing checks?

Yep, I'm the unobjective one.

Should we have gotten more, and different players in trade? In retrospect, yes. Are Kearns and to a lesser degree Lopez good ballpayers? Yes. Are they valuable guys to have on your team? I'd say Kearns yes, Lopez no (that is nothing special that's going to make or break you).

I'm not tearing them down to prove a point (in fact, for those who can read, you'll notice that I've said I realize that I was wrong and that in the short term, the trade was a disaster) but let's stop acting like they are the second comming of Ted Williams just to bloster our argument. An arguement, by the way, that stands on it's own merrits without having to pretend that these players are perfect.

The Snow Chief
05-09-2007, 04:21 PM
The reason we have a better shortstop now is because we had to blow our entire free agent budget to sign one becuase The Trade left a gaping hole at that position.

Check Lopez's contract compared to Gonzo's. They are making very similar money. We are paying Gonzo what Lopez would be making this year.

Caveman Techie
05-09-2007, 04:35 PM
We could have Kearns and Hamilton. We could have Gonzalez and Lopez. .

Yes, because a small market team often times ties up almost 7.5 Million dollars into two starting shortstops. Gonzalez wouldn't of been here except for the fact that Lopez was traded.

As for Kearns and Hamilton, you may be right. WK may have taken a flyer on Hamilton even if Kearns was still here. But you never know, why go looking for another outfielder that has to stay on the ML roster when you have Dunn, Griffey, Kearns, Freel, and Denorfia.

You are correct that Hamilton and Gonzalez are not "direct" results of the trade, but at least one of them if not both are an indirect result none the less.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 04:41 PM
Are you so nieve as to think a GM isn't going to point out a players warts in an attempt to drive down their asking price?

Or that they will whip out their BP annual, only look up the OPS and then start writing checks?

Yep, I'm the unobjective one.

No, many GMs won't care about a player's OPS. But they will look at his gaudy 2005 numbers and think "I want that guy. He'll be able to do it again."

Any GM worth his salt will bring up warts about a player (he's a head case, he makes too much money, his mother is ugly), but very few will ignore a season like Lopez's 2005.


Should we have gotten more, and different players in trade? In retrospect, yes. Are Kearns and to a lesser degree Lopez good ballpayers? Yes. Are they valuable guys to have on your team? I'd say Kearns yes, Lopez no (that is nothing special that's going to make or break you).

I'm not tearing them down to prove a point (in fact, for those who can read, you'll notice that I've said I realize that I was wrong and that in the short term, the trade was a disaster) but let's stop acting like they are the second comming of Ted Williams just to bloster our argument. An arguement, by the way, that stands on it's own merrits without having to pretend that these players are perfect.

When did I compare either of them to Ted Williams? When did I say they were perfect? When did quoting facts to refute someone's claim that they were "overvalued" turn into myth-making? Trade rationalizers blast Kearns and Lopez as if they were the worst players this century. I simply pointed out that they did have significant value as hitters at the very least.

Johnny Footstool
05-09-2007, 04:43 PM
You are correct that Hamilton and Gonzalez are not "direct" results of the trade, but at least one of them if not both are an indirect result none the less.

On the other "reassessing" thread, I pointed out (rhetorically) that the Frank Robinson trade wasn't bad because it allowed the Reds to acquire Joe Morgan.

peterose00
05-09-2007, 07:21 PM
Go back and read all the articles at the time of the trade. Read Baseball Prospectus 2007. Read the Hardball Times Annual Review. Read all the columns on ESPN.com. Read the Sporting News. Everyone knows the Reds got raped.

There are numerous articles saying the trade was a good one too -- you just deny their existance or say those who wrote them are stupid. That isn't too objective.

Lonnie Wheeler and others have written this within the last few days and you are calling them stupid -- yet you quote sources who judged the trade after a couple of days and are clinging to those as the gospel truth. Hhhhhmmmmm I don't mean to sound cruel -- but that is really dumb.

I'm not going to say the weather this summer has been really bad before Memorial Day is even here yet. I think your knock of this deal is an awful lot like that.

That's just plain dumb.

peterose00
05-09-2007, 07:25 PM
On the other "reassessing" thread, I pointed out (rhetorically) that the Frank Robinson trade wasn't bad because it allowed the Reds to acquire Joe Morgan.

And that kind of facetiousness only serves to make you look silly. Eight years passed between the Robinson deal and the Morgan deal -- and you know it. But you have to say something like that to emphasize a point that really doesn't apply in this case.

Krivsky's ability to improve this roster has been and continues to be one of his strengths. And the time period between the Kearns/Lopez deal and the acquisitions of AGonz and Hamilton was five to six months.

What was clearly an unrelated move in your case -- was a completely valid point -- Krivsky replaced Kearns and Lopez with better players -- by any measurement -- for less money and mproved the team in the process. he deserves credit for that.

peterose00
05-09-2007, 07:29 PM
Any GM worth his salt will bring up warts about a player (he's a head case, he makes too much money, his mother is ugly), but very few will ignore a season like Lopez's 2005.

Lopez had a stretch i 2005 when he was a good offensive player. He has never been even average defensively -- and tthat has only gone from bad to worse.

George Bush had a stretch when he had a decdent approval rating -- but that was long ago and that little stretch didn't make him a great President. And Bush's stretch was far longer than any good stretch that Lopez had as a ballplayer.

peterose00
05-09-2007, 07:31 PM
Yes, because a small market team often times ties up almost 7.5 Million dollars into two starting shortstops. Gonzalez wouldn't of been here except for the fact that Lopez was traded.

As for Kearns and Hamilton, you may be right. WK may have taken a flyer on Hamilton even if Kearns was still here. But you never know, why go looking for another outfielder that has to stay on the ML roster when you have Dunn, Griffey, Kearns, Freel, and Denorfia.

You are correct that Hamilton and Gonzalez are not "direct" results of the trade, but at least one of them if not both are an indirect result none the less.

Good point -- and if we did have those two, why would we play them over AGonz and Hamilton?

peterose00
05-09-2007, 07:40 PM
You just don't get it. We could have Kearns and Hamilton. We could have Gonzalez and Lopez. They weren't traded for each other were they? Those were completely separate transactions! Can't you understand that?

If you would rather keep Hamilton than Kearns (instead of keeping both), then you trade Kearns for something that improves the team -- don't just foolishly give him away for nothing and say it was smart because Hamilton is better than Kearns.

Same with Lopez.

We gave Kearns and Lopez away for free.

If you buy a new car do you just give your old one away? No. You sell it for the best deal you can get. We bought a new shortstop and gave the old one away for free. Foolish.

Gee -- I didn't know we didn't get anything for them??? I thought we got 4 players.

What you are ignoring or in denial about is:

(1) Both Kearns and Lopez were looking at large increases in payroll -- and have gotten it since then.

(2) Both Lopez and Kearns were struggling offensively -- and have since then as well.

(3) Both Lopez and Kearns had never had a season long offensive output -- and have not since then either.

(4) Lopez sucked so badly at SS that this club was going no where as long as he was the SS -- and the Nationals have concluded the same thing since then.

So Krivsky dumped them and their salaries, got four good players (including two major league ready arms), got a guy who has performed this year at dayton at a level that only Homer Bailey has approached in the recent past. He freed up money and spots on the roster to improve both the offense and the defense with two players that are cheaper.

Why is that so hard to see?

peterose00
05-09-2007, 07:44 PM
The reason we have a better shortstop now is because we had to blow our entire free agent budget to sign one becuase The Trade left a gaping hole at that position.

We had a free agent budget because we were not in a position of having to resign Lopez and Kearns.

peterose00
05-09-2007, 07:54 PM
I think you will have a very hard time convincing the people here at Redszone that The Trade was anything but a disaster. I think 90% of the people here agree it was a huge blunder on Krivsky's part. Around the rest of the league 99% of people think the Reds got screwed to historic proportions.

The folks as Baseball Prospectus were apoplectic over the trade. They were aghast that Krivsky would get raped by the likes of Jim freakin' Bowden.

Most articles written about The Trade compared it to some of the worst trades in the last 25 years. The general conclusions were it was the most lopsided trade other than the Victor Zambrano for Scott Kazmir trade in the last 10 years. It is pretty hard to defend against that landslide of opinion momentum.

If you are looking for substantiation of your opinion by seeing the general concensus here at REDSZONE, then you are defering to a very small and admittedly biased sample size -- which is one way of pointing out how meaningless that would be.

REDSZONE concensus would also say that Marty Brenneman is a poor announcer -- yet he is in the Hall-of-Fame. REDSZONE would generally state that Adam Dunn is a marquee player in baseball -- and that is certainly not true. REDSZONE makes the same mistake that many places make, they rush to judgement and then say something or do something that they later regret (or at least look stupid for having done or said).

Need an example, recall George Bush stadning at ground zero and rallying our country about getting the people who did this. The profound mistake of this war we are in later, and people can see what they couldn't see before.

Jim Bowden was loved around here years ago; he was named GM of the year -- but there were a handful of us who saw him for what he was -- a phony who set this franchise back ten years (at least) -- but it took a while for the masses" to see it -- especially here at REDSZONE.

The other sources you cite all offered opinions within days of the trade. I don't see anyone nationally knocking the deal now. But I am seeing places NOW suggest that krivsky is looking more and more wise for doing this deal and improving the club at multiple levels.

gonelong
05-09-2007, 08:37 PM
REDSZONE concensus would also say that Marty Brenneman is a poor announcer -- yet he is in the Hall-of-Fame.

Redzone consensus is that Marty is the Bees Knees and its not even close. Even the majority of those that have any reservations at all about Marty will tell you he is an excellent announcer when he wants to be.


REDSZONE would generally state that Adam Dunn is a marquee player in baseball -- and that is certainly not true.

Redszone is bi-polar when it comes to Adam Dunn. Redszone would generally state that no one single opinion of Dunn could be attributed to it.



REDSZONE makes the same mistake that many places make, they rush to judgement and then say something or do something that they later regret (or at least look stupid for having done or said).


Redszone is made up of 1000s of posters that offer many different opinions. If everyone took a "wait and see" approach to discussing the event surround the Reds, we'd not have much to discuss.

How is Narron doing this year?
I think it's too early to tell, we'll have to wait and see.

How is bullpen doing this year?
I think it's too early to tell, we'll have to wait and see.

What do you think of that trade with the Nationals?
I think it's too early to tell, we'll have to wait and see. Call me back in 2009.

I have witnessed plenty of posters come back and admit they were wrong about different situations.



The other sources you cite all offered opinions within days of the trade. I don't see anyone nationally knocking the deal now.

From the perspective of the press, the trade is old news already, no need to continue knocking it.



But I am seeing places NOW suggest that krivsky is looking more and more wise for doing this deal and improving the club at multiple levels.

If you would, please reference a few of these places, I'd enjoy reading them.

GL

peterose00
05-10-2007, 12:47 AM
If you would, please reference a few of these places, I'd enjoy reading them.

GL

Look up the Post's Lonnie Wheeler column from last weekend -- which has been prominently quoted here at REDSZONE. Another article appeared just days prior to that -- and is also copied right here at REDSZONE -- for your convenience and reading pleasure.

Enjoy.

peterose00
05-10-2007, 12:55 AM
How is Narron doing this year?
I think it's too early to tell, we'll have to wait and see.

Well, that would be true. The Reds have played 34 games this year. Even Ji Bowden -- maybe one of th dumbest people on the planet -- gave Tony Perez 44 games before dumping him.

peterose00
05-10-2007, 12:57 AM
How is bullpen doing this year?
I think it's too early to tell, we'll have to wait and see.

The bullpen has sucked so far. This club sorely needs a closer and has fallen victim to the same thing that hurt so much last year. So many guys are pitching in the wrong roles. It certainly isn't too early to see that.

I expect krivsky to do something within the next week (or earlier).

peterose00
05-10-2007, 12:58 AM
What do you think of that trade with the Nationals?
I think it's too early to tell, we'll have to wait and see. Call me back in 2009.

No no no -- I liked that deal then and like it even more now. Krivsky's roster composition is one of his greatest strengths and replacing Kearns and Lopez with AGonz and Hamilton was a brilliant move.

peterose00
05-10-2007, 01:08 AM
Redszone is made up of 1000s of posters that offer many different opinions. If everyone took a "wait and see" approach to discussing the event surround the Reds, we'd not have much to discuss.

But that does not make the wait and see approach wrong in any way, nor does that lend any credence to those posters who rush to judgement and argue that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

Quite possibly the wait and see approach is what should be discussed/emphasized more. Discussing "wait and see" shouldn't automatically limit or cease discussion. In fact, it might ultimately be the most appropriate discussion content as it relates to many things that otherwise lapse into some people's ego blowing hard off their keyboard.

Otherwise, you have a bunch of folks filled with their own self-righteousness blowing alot of hot air -- unable to consider any option on any issue other than the one they have conjured up in their minds.

RedEye
05-10-2007, 01:12 AM
And that kind of facetiousness only serves to make you look silly. Eight years passed between the Robinson deal and the Morgan deal -- and you know it. But you have to say something like that to emphasize a point that really doesn't apply in this case.


I didn't take him as being facetious. What he's saying is that you might as well relate those two moves if you are going to relate these two. Trying to say that Hamilton and Gonzalez are an effect of The Trade is simply retroactive logic that doesn't make sense.


Krivsky's ability to improve this roster has been and continues to be one of his strengths.

And it's really been reflected in on the field, hasn't it?


What was clearly an unrelated move in your case -- was a completely valid point -- Krivsky replaced Kearns and Lopez with better players -- by any measurement -- for less money and mproved the team in the process. he deserves credit for that.

He deserves credit for finding good players to replace the ones he gave away for nothing. What we're taking issue with is the fact that he gave them away for nothing rather than using them to acquire good players to improve the team.

peterose00
05-10-2007, 01:19 AM
I didn't take him as being facetious. What he's saying is that you might as well relate those two moves if you are going to relate these two. Trying to say that Hamilton and Gonzalez are an effect of The Trade is simply retroactive logic that doesn't make sense.

I think you are mixing up your apples with your oranges.

I don't agree at all that you cannot connect Krivsky's trade of Kearns and then just five short months later where he continued his building the roster and improving the team. What is hard to understand is how anyone would NOT link these two moves together. And the club we all root for is better because of it.

peterose00
05-10-2007, 01:21 AM
And it's really been reflected in on the field, hasn't it?

It's been a hard ride so far for sure -- but it is also a long season -- and even Jim Bowden gave Tony Perez 44 games -- we've only played 34 so far this year.

Maybe the answer is -- "wait and see".

peterose00
05-10-2007, 01:31 AM
He deserves credit for finding good players to replace the ones he gave away for nothing. What we're taking issue with is the fact that he gave them away for nothing rather than using them to acquire good players to improve the team.

What you (and others) insist on calling "nothing" -- was actually two major league ready arms (albeit one injured) a AAA infielder and a pitcher who currently is ringing up numbers that compare favoerably to what Homer Bailey did there.

At the same time, Kearns and Lopez were looking at large boosts in their salaries -- which we avoided having to take on. Krivsky then acquired AGonz and hamilton -- at less cost and improved both the offense and defense -- see how these things are most assuredly connected?

These deals were not made in a vacuum and independent of one another. Not unlike chess -- Krivsky was looking two or three or four moves ahead of our ability as fans to see his vision for this club. But to keep denying that these couldn't have possibly been interrelated is so shortsighted. To keep saying that they can't be seen as interdependent of one another might be the most insane position of all.

AtomicDumpling
05-10-2007, 02:14 AM
peterose00 gets my vote for the most ardent support of a losing cause. He just doesn't get it and he never will. I don't feel like going back and correcting his falsehoods from the 100 messages he entered in this thread. It has pretty much all been disproven in the first 140 posts already.

Krivsky has completely failed to improve this team since he came here. The team is worse, not better. The Reds can't score runs, the defense is 2nd worst in the league, the bullpen is a shambles.

He gave Kearns, Lopez and Wagner away for a fraction of their value.

He overpaid for Gonzalez.

He overpaid for Cormier.

He overpaid David Ross.

His good moves are trading for Arroyo, picking Phillips up off the scrap heap, and snagging Hamilton for nothing.

I would say his mistakes outweigh his successes so far.

M2
05-10-2007, 02:53 AM
As the Reds fan who inspired the Shyster's latest column, "Reassessing The Kearns Trade," I feel a good deal of responsibility for some of the critical remarks the Shyster has taken on baseballthinkfactory and redszone.

He did a horrid job of it. You've done better. Still wrong, but at least you aren't springing bear traps with every sentence.


(1) the Reds should have gotten more value for those players; ... As to the first argument, it can only be debated with conjecture.

Well, anything that didn't happen obviously requires conjecture. Though I go back to my Carlos Lee statement. Austin Kearns is awfully similar to the 27-year-old Carlos Lee and we all saw what the Astros were willing to pay for the older version. Felipe Lopez was a 26-year-old with a good pedigree coming off an All-Star season.

I saw the Reds trade their closer in 2003 for two kids who still haven't tasted the majors. Now I've seen the Reds receive two pitchers who couldn't carry Scott Williamson's jock (and the abysmal Royce Clayton) for the price of two everyday players. It's embarrassing when you root for a franchise that's made a speciality of trading something for nothing.


(2) the trade failed to acheive its stated purpose, which was to make the team better in 2006.

Well, when you don't get the appropriate amount of talent in return, that screws any chance of the deal being a long-term winner. The Reds can't trade Kearns and Lopez again. They were the right guys to trade, but the team didn't get what it needed. Though they were better properties than Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena, they fetched pennies on the dollar in comparison.

So the deal pretty much had to transform the team in 2006 to deliver a payoff. It didn't. No going back and re-doing that either.


It is also clear that Wayne Krivsky wanted to go in a different long-term direction. Who knows what type of return Krivsky was offered for these players. My sense is that it was much less than Reds fans expect.

Then be patient. That's what a good GM who's thinking long-term would do.


Like the above example, after looking at the statistics, I became convinced that while there was a drop in run production and wins during the post-trade 2006 Reds season, that decline had very little to do with the absence of Kearns and Lopez. Rather, it is almost exclusively attributable to the horrendous September slumps of the other six starters in the Reds lineup.

And what would the effect of having two more hitters on hand to take pitches (thus wearing out opposing pitchers) have been? Also, might Lopez and Kearns have lent stability to the lineup, tempering Jerry Narron's dadaist lineup construction, establishing clear roles for many of the players who slumped and removing much of the pressure to hit three-run homers with the bases empty?

I don't know, but I can say with 100% surety that they certainly wouldn't have hurt. Meanwhile Bray, Majewski and Clayton provided nothing. So you've got two guys who'd have probably helped and three guys who didn't. For a team that missed first place by three games, that's an awful deal.


I wasn't the biggest trade supporter at the time. But I've come to realize that it probably resulted in a net benefit for the Reds organization and did not cost the Reds a 2006 run at glory.

The gaping hole in your theory is that you assume Kearns and Lopez would have prevented the Reds from playing the guys who were producing while those who struggled still would have been on the field. While I'll concede Jerry Narron often thumbs his nose at logic, I'll give him enough credit to say he'd play the guys with the hot hand down the stretch.

For a team that struggled mightily at the plate, two more productive bats would have only been a good thing. The team lost more games, the pythag went south. Like you said, the numbers don't lie. You can try to segment it all you want, but in the end, the Reds played better baseball before the trade than after it.

As for where the team is today, the offense isn't as good as the one he inherited. I don't mind that, but he hasn't gained enough in other areas to offset it. He's done well on the starting pitching front, though I wish he'd have been a bit more aggressive there and gotten one more arm this offseason. He's spent far too much time not fixing the bullpen. That's a problem. It's one thing if you dump all those resources (time even more than money) into something that works, but when it doesn't what it leaves you with is the stark realization that you could have focused your efforts elsewhere and been better off for it.

The larger problem for Krivsky is this team really isn't any better than it was after he acquired Brandon Phillips. Maybe if most things go right this club will finish above .500, but you could have said that about last year's too. It's May and we are literally already looking into the 2008 crystal ball. Good returns for Kearns and Lopez could be paying dividends right now or at least put us in the boat Brewers fans were in last year (knowing your team had plenty of talent even if you were frustrated that it wasn't translating into wins yet).

peterose00
05-10-2007, 03:51 AM
peterose00 gets my vote for the most ardent support of a losing cause. He just doesn't get it and he never will. I don't feel like going back and correcting his falsehoods from the 100 messages he entered in this thread.

Given that I have yet to post 100 times cumulatively, I would say your lack of credibility is showing (again).

The Snow Chief
05-10-2007, 08:53 AM
And it's really been reflected in on the field, hasn't it?


.


Why yes, it has. He inherited a 16 game under .500 team and turned it into a team that was 2 games under .500. They are not starting off well this year but it's still early.

The Snow Chief
05-10-2007, 08:56 AM
Well, anything that didn't happen obviously requires conjecture. Though I go back to my Carlos Lee statement. Austin Kearns is awfully similar to the 27-year-old Carlos Lee and we all saw what the Astros were willing to pay for the older version.

Then I guess we should have gotten almost as much for letting Kearns go as the Rangers got for letting Carlos Lee go. Wait a minute, the Rangers got jack squat.

Johnny Footstool
05-10-2007, 09:49 AM
Lopez had a stretch i 2005 when he was a good offensive player. He has never been even average defensively -- and tthat has only gone from bad to worse.

George Bush had a stretch when he had a decdent approval rating -- but that was long ago and that little stretch didn't make him a great President. And Bush's stretch was far longer than any good stretch that Lopez had as a ballplayer.

Talk about not making sense...

The simple point I was making with the Robinson deal is that you can deconstruct any trade and, given enough time, turn it into a positive. That's what people are trying to do with the Kearns/Lopez deal. People are already playing "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" with this deal to try to make it look better.

Case in point:


No no no -- I liked that deal then and like it even more now. Krivsky's roster composition is one of his greatest strengths and replacing Kearns and Lopez with AGonz and Hamilton was a brilliant move.

Plenty of posters have pointed out that acquiring AGonz and Hamilton was not contingent on trading Kearns and Lopez for bullpen junk.

But please, go ahead and keep rationalizing a bad deal. That's called sour grapes.

Caveman Techie
05-10-2007, 11:22 AM
Plenty of posters have pointed out that acquiring AGonz and Hamilton was not contingent on trading Kearns and Lopez for bullpen junk.

But please, go ahead and keep rationalizing a bad deal. That's called sour grapes.


Repeat after me. I don't need two starting shortstops. I don't need two starting shortstops. I don't need two starting shortstops. ;)

Trying to say that AGonz would still be here even if Lopez wasn't traded is just plain silly. Now argue about the return that WK got for Lopez all you want. But the only reason we got Agonz is because we didn't have a shortstop.

pedro
05-10-2007, 11:25 AM
Lopez can't play SS so you can't compare him offensively to other SS IMO. He *may* be able to play 2nd, but that is still to be determined.

Either way, if he continues to hit like he has this year he isn't going to be playing anywhere.

registerthis
05-10-2007, 11:28 AM
Then I guess we should have gotten almost as much for letting Kearns go as the Rangers got for letting Carlos Lee go. Wait a minute, the Rangers got jack squat.

Wait a minute, Kearns wasn't a free agent.

M2
05-10-2007, 11:57 AM
Then I guess we should have gotten almost as much for letting Kearns go as the Rangers got for letting Carlos Lee go. Wait a minute, the Rangers got jack squat.

I doubt I need to explain the difference between a trade and free agency to you. Apparently, though, you've forgotten the Rangers got a little more than jack squat for Lee. It's entirely possible that the Rangers will get more long-term impact from the #17 and #35 picks in the June draft than the Reds will for the arms they picked up for Kearns and Lopez.

Of course, Carlos Lee was traded last year too. I'll go out on a limb and say the Brewers got a better return for Lee than the Reds did in their big deadline deal.

nate
05-10-2007, 12:26 PM
peterose00 gets my vote for the most ardent support of a losing cause. He just doesn't get it and he never will. I don't feel like going back and correcting his falsehoods from the 100 messages he entered in this thread. It has pretty much all been disproven in the first 140 posts already.

Its his opinion, I don't see how you can prove or disprove it.


Krivsky has completely failed to improve this team since he came here. The team is worse, not better.

Their record is slightly better but perhaps your "better" scale isn't calibrated in the same way. So, in your mind, how many more wins tip the meter from "crappy" to "better"?


The Reds can't score runs, the defense is 2nd worst in the league, the bullpen is a shambles.

Reds rank in runs scored: 10th (MLB), 6th (NL). Hmm! I'd take that as pretty good...or at least an ability to score runs.

I dunno about measuring defensive stats but looking at the number of errors for all teams in MLB, the Reds have the 3rd most so there's one to you. However, can we agree that the D up the middle (Gonzo and Hamilton) is much better than what we had last year (Lopez and Griffey)?

BTW, the team with the most amount of errors is...Washington!

For pitching, again hard to apply a single stat and say "there it is" but they're in the middle of the MLB for ERA and the lower half of the NL. Almost smack in the middle of the NL for OPS against and "BS" (Blown Saves, a great acronym if ever I saw one). The Nats, Rockies and Marlins lead the NL in BS, btw.

A big surprise, in the NL, the Reds staff has given up the 4th fewest HRs! That's even with Eric "Owie Elbow" Milton out there. Blazing the trail of ugly is...the Nats!


He gave Kearns, Lopez and Wagner away for a fraction of their value.

OK, what were they worth? What could he have gotten? When he posted "SS with cool tattoos and All-star game coffee mug" and "Above average OF/loves C&W music and potatos" on the GM Craigslist, what offers did he turn down that would've been better?


He overpaid for Gonzalez.

He overpaid for Cormier.

He overpaid David Ross.

I agree on Cormier. The others...I'm not really bothered, I think its what those kind of dudes make.


His good moves are trading for Arroyo, picking Phillips up off the scrap heap, and snagging Hamilton for nothing.

I would say his mistakes outweigh his successes so far.

I wouldn't. Those three moves...well, heck...just Arroyo is enough for me. It wasn't too long ago that I was having nightmares that began like this:

"And today's starting pitcher is Jimmy Haynes."

The other stuff is gravy. To me, at least. I give Wayne a C/C+ so far.

Johnny Footstool
05-10-2007, 01:03 PM
Repeat after me. I don't need two starting shortstops. I don't need two starting shortstops. I don't need two starting shortstops. ;)

Trying to say that AGonz would still be here even if Lopez wasn't traded is just plain silly. Now argue about the return that WK got for Lopez all you want. But the only reason we got Agonz is because we didn't have a shortstop.

You can trade players in the offseason. You can trade players in the offseason. You can trade players in the offseason.

The point you're missing is that Krivsky didn't have to undersell Lopez in order to get Gonzalez. Trading Lopez was a fine idea, but the trade Wayne settled on was lousy. You don't have to set your old car on fire in order to buy a new car.

Signing Gonzalez doesn't make the Kearns/Lopez trade any better.

peterose00
05-10-2007, 03:22 PM
Lopez can't play SS so you can't compare him offensively to other SS IMO. He *may* be able to play 2nd, but that is still to be determined.

Either way, if he continues to hit like he has this year he isn't going to be playing anywhere.

I am with you every step of the way. But I'm afraid you are making too much sense. Saying that doesn't fit the clsoed-minded agenda of these folks.

Krivsky made this club better by any measurement and there are people here spinning that into something bad.

membengal
05-10-2007, 03:42 PM
"Close minded agenda"? Nice. No one who disagrees with you has been hurling insults, and yet you come with that. Class. All class.

WK by his OWN ADMISSION admits that his deal failed in one important measure last year. But, hey, I guess I have an agenda in taking WK at face value on that. Lovely.

peterose00
05-10-2007, 03:54 PM
"Close minded agenda"? Nice. No one who disagrees with you has been hurling insults, and yet you come with that. Class. All class.

WK by his OWN ADMISSION admits that his deal failed in one important measure last year. But, hey, I guess I have an agenda in taking WK at face value on that. Lovely.

The agenda -- your agenda -- and the agenda of others -- is clearly to knock this deal and call it bad, no matter what evidence that can be presented to the contrary.

The deal didn't provide the bullpen help that it was designed to do last year. But the impact -- positively or negatively -- does not end there. Like you stated above "his deal failed in one important measure last year".

As much evidence can be pointed at Adam Dunn and others as to why this club petered out at the end of last year. If Dunn and other hit in August and September, the bullpen didn't matter one way or another.

But we still have two major league ready arms (albeit one injured because Bowden is a liar and a snake). We have a kid in Dayton who is ringing up numbers that are better than Hmer Bailey did there. And because Wayne Krivsky didn't make this trade in a vacuum -- he dumped Lopez and Kearns before they became dramatically ore expensive -- and while their production has struggled and continued even after the deal

On the other hand, his resourcefulness has brought us AGonz and Hamilton -- two better layers by any measurement and cheaper as well.

membengal
05-10-2007, 04:00 PM
My only "agenda" is to discuss Reds baseball. Whether I agree with moves the Reds have made or not, I have no more vested interest than that. Since open disagreement apparently upsets you, I guess I will move you to ignore, and look to engage others in a discussion who don't need to resort to villifying those they disagree with.

RedEye
05-10-2007, 04:13 PM
Krivsky made this club better by any measurement and there are people here spinning that into something bad.

Which "measurement" are you talking about?

Winning percentage?
Nope.

Pitching?
Well, he has acquired some decent starters, but none of them came over in The Trade that I know of.

Defense?
Maybe. Gonzalez is good at picking it... but oh wait, he wasn't part of The Trade either, was he?

I believe the point you are missing here is a very obvious one.

We the anti-Traders are not claiming, by any of these "measurements", that all of Krivsky's moves have been bad. We are not even claiming that Kearns and Lopez were terribly great players.

What we are claiming, as we've pointed out NUMEROUS times now, is that Kearns and Lopez did not have to be traded in order to get where we are now. We could have used them to build the club rather than trade them away for effectively NOTHING.

Really, who's being close-minded here?

Johnny Footstool
05-10-2007, 04:16 PM
The agenda -- your agenda -- and the agenda of others -- is clearly to knock this deal and call it bad, no matter what evidence that can be presented to the contrary.

Your agenda is clear as well. But I'll keep playing because it amuses me.


The deal didn't provide the bullpen help that it was designed to do last year. But the impact -- positively or negatively -- does not end there. Like you stated above "his deal failed in one important measure last year".

I'm glad you're willing to admit the obvious.


We have a kid in Dayton who is ringing up numbers that are better than Hmer Bailey did there

Bailey was 19 when he put up those numbers. Thompson is 21. Those two years make a big difference.


And because Wayne Krivsky didn't make this trade in a vacuum -- he dumped Lopez and Kearns before they became dramatically ore expensive -- and while their production has struggled and continued even after the deal

On the other hand, his resourcefulness has brought us AGonz and Hamilton -- two better layers by any measurement and cheaper as well.

As stated before, those moves are unrelated to the pile of junk Krivsky received in return for Kearns and Lopez.

As to AGonz and Hamilton's respective skills as "layers", I'll have to take your word for that.

M2
05-10-2007, 07:03 PM
The agenda -- your agenda -- and the agenda of others -- is clearly to knock this deal and call it bad, no matter what evidence that can be presented to the contrary.

Honestly, now that you've got a small amount of distance from the moment when you typed that sentence you can see the crazy coming out of it, can't you?

I'm not trying to bash you here. We all get a little nutty sometimes. I'm just saying that in a more lucid moment you've surely got to recognize that no one in the universe thinks that way.

We're Reds fans here. We want the team's deals to work out. It sucks when they don't. No one likes it. Certainly no one yearns for it.

AtomicDumpling
05-10-2007, 07:13 PM
I think peterose00 might in fact be Wayne Krivsky. Nobody else thinks the trade wasn't horrible.

HokieRed
05-10-2007, 10:44 PM
I haven't seen this hypothetical suggested, but if someone has done so, I'm sorry to repeat. I'd be interested in what this board would have thought of a Kearns for Bob Wickman deal last summer[?]

Ron Madden
05-10-2007, 10:47 PM
I haven't seen this hypothetical suggested, but if someone has done so, I'm sorry to repeat. I'd be interested in what this board would have thought of a Kearns for Bob Wickman deal last summer[?]

It woulda beat hell outta the deal that was made.

AtomicDumpling
05-10-2007, 11:28 PM
I haven't seen this hypothetical suggested, but if someone has done so, I'm sorry to repeat. I'd be interested in what this board would have thought of a Kearns for Bob Wickman deal last summer[?]

I think it would have improved the Reds' chances of making the post season last year. "The Trade" made the team worse. Your proposed trade would have made the team better from a pitching perspective for sure.

RedEye
05-10-2007, 11:53 PM
I haven't seen this hypothetical suggested, but if someone has done so, I'm sorry to repeat. I'd be interested in what this board would have thought of a Kearns for Bob Wickman deal last summer[?]

I don't think I would have been happy with it... but I also don't think it would have motivated me to make hundreds of posts in a Reds forum about why I hated it (and continue to hate it) so much.

No, to borrow the vocabulary of RedsManRick, it would have been "a trade", and even temporarily "the trade" the Reds just made. But it never would have become "The Trade" that continues to generate the most angst and spirited debate on this board.

peterose00
05-11-2007, 12:21 AM
My only "agenda" is to discuss Reds baseball. Whether I agree with moves the Reds have made or not, I have no more vested interest than that. Since open disagreement apparently upsets you, I guess I will move you to ignore, and look to engage others in a discussion who don't need to resort to villifying those they disagree with.

Knock yourself out, pal.

peterose00
05-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Honestly, now that you've got a small amount of distance from the moment when you typed that sentence you can see the crazy coming out of it, can't you?

I'm not trying to bash you here. We all get a little nutty sometimes. I'm just saying that in a more lucid moment you've surely got to recognize that no one in the universe thinks that way.

We're Reds fans here. We want the team's deals to work out. It sucks when they don't. No one likes it. Certainly no one yearns for it.

This deal can be seen a myriad of ways -- good and bad, half empty or half full -- I am choosing to see it in the most positive light -- which Krivsky is making easier and easier to do.

peterose00
05-11-2007, 12:25 AM
I think peterose00 might in fact be Wayne Krivsky. Nobody else thinks the trade wasn't horrible.

Lonnie Wheeler agrees that the trade was a very good one for the Reds. The thread right here is yet another persons assessment which is quite similar to that.

RedEye
05-11-2007, 12:30 AM
Why yes, it has. He inherited a 16 game under .500 team and turned it into a team that was 2 games under .500. They are not starting off well this year but it's still early.

Wait a minute... I thought we were debating the Reds performance since The Trade (as per the thread title), not the Reds since Krivsky took over. I didn't have as much of a problem with his strategy when they were above .500 and battling for first place. Then he sprang this stinker on us last July and gave away two of our core players. Since then, his long-term vision (and the Reds play) has looked distinctly less, well, convincing.

M2
05-11-2007, 12:42 AM
This deal can be seen a myriad of ways -- good and bad, half empty or half full -- I am choosing to see it in the most positive light -- which Krivsky is making easier and easier to do.

I don't go in for that kind of relativism. It's not like we're talking about multiple parallel realities here. The deal got made, the rationale behind the deal was explained by the GM, it didn't work and now the team is feeling the pinch of not getting the appropriate amount of talent in return.

Some things just are. It's got nothing nothing to do with spin, half empty, half full or lighting.

RedEye
05-11-2007, 12:55 AM
What you (and others) insist on calling "nothing" -- was actually two major league ready arms (albeit one injured) a AAA infielder and a pitcher who currently is ringing up numbers that compare favoerably to what Homer Bailey did there.

At the same time, Kearns and Lopez were looking at large boosts in their salaries -- which we avoided having to take on. Krivsky then acquired AGonz and hamilton -- at less cost and improved both the offense and defense -- see how these things are most assuredly connected?

These deals were not made in a vacuum and independent of one another. Not unlike chess -- Krivsky was looking two or three or four moves ahead of our ability as fans to see his vision for this club. But to keep denying that these couldn't have possibly been interrelated is so shortsighted. To keep saying that they can't be seen as interdependent of one another might be the most insane position of all.

Okay, but your not listening to what I'm trying to say. When I say "nothing", what I mean is that The Trade returned the Reds "nothing that substantially improved the roster they already had." At this point, I don't think there is ANY denying that Majewski, Bray, and Thompson have done NOTHING to improve the ML roster. Brendan Harris and Royce Clayton are literally nothing to the roster now as well.

Again, I'm not arguing that Kearns and Lopez are Foster and Concepcion. Far from it. I'll even admit that we RedsZoners have a tendency to overrate both of them at times. Be that as it may, they are two everyday players in major league baseball that many other teams could have used on their rosters. Major league regulars do NOT grow on trees.

Yes, Krivsky did do a good job replacing those two guys with Hamilton and Gonzo. However, if you are going to take the "long view" on everything else Krivsky does, you must also admit that the "long view" on these two replacements is not nearly as clear as we might like it. Gonzo is a slightly above average defensive SS with a .298 lifetime OBP. There is a reason he has bounced around for a few years: his defense does not outweigh his relative lack of offense. He is an adequate stopgap IMO, not a long-term replacement. Hamilton, godlike as he might appear, has played ML baseball for a little over a month. I'd love to see him succeed, but part of me thinks he might go all Stanley Wilson on us in a month, a year, or two years. I think we need to accept the real possibility that these two guys may actually not either be long-term answers like we want them to be.

But, once again, let me get to my main point--which is the one you steadfastly refuse to hear no matter how many times I rephrase it:

Krivsky simply did NOT get good value in return for the two regulars he traded away. I'm not against trading them, I'm against trading them for such questionable players. Heck, Krivsky didn't even do due diligence on Majik's arm! I'm sorry, but no matter how good his acquisitions have been since that time, Krivsky still gave away two regular players for what amounts to bullpen fodder and a propsect in A ball. Only the most impossibly optimistic of "long views" can view this trade as anything but a disaster at this point.

RedEye
05-11-2007, 01:06 AM
It's been a hard ride so far for sure -- but it is also a long season -- and even Jim Bowden gave Tony Perez 44 games -- we've only played 34 so far this year.

Maybe the answer is -- "wait and see".

Look... In my post I was responding to your preposterous claim that the Reds are now better "by any measure." Fascinated by how you could possibly back up such a statement, I offered you several "measures", none of which displayed any evidence that this is the case.

Fact remains that there simply IS no reliable way to back your case at this point, I'm afraid... unless you're going to throw the whole red herring argument of "Hamilton is better than Kearns, Gonzo is better than Felipe" in my face again. I would hope you know better than that since at this point that argument has now been refuted at least 100 times in 10 different threads. ;)

The Snow Chief
05-11-2007, 02:36 AM
Wait a minute... I thought we were debating the Reds performance since The Trade (as per the thread title), not the Reds since Krivsky took over. I didn't have as much of a problem with his strategy when they were above .500 and battling for first place. Then he sprang this stinker on us last July and gave away two of our core players. Since then, his long-term vision (and the Reds play) has looked distinctly less, well, convincing.

Your quote was responding to a general post about Krivsky improving this club overall.

On the field, they substantially improved on that above .500 record until the last week in August, when everyone else in the starting line-up went South. Look at the offensive numbers Kearns and Lopez are putting up, our struggles have nothing to do with their absences from our line-up.

Your argument that the loss of Kearns and Lopez is hurting our line-up just does not stand up to scrutiny. We got production as good as they were delivering last year and are getting better production this year.

Like I have been saying, if you think that the Reds could have gotten much more for those two and the opportunity costs of the trade are hurting us, then I think that is worthy of debate. I just don't see how anyone still clings to the notion that we are missing their (lackluster relative to salary) production.

The Snow Chief
05-11-2007, 02:51 AM
Lopez has a 662 OPS coupled with his horrible fielding. He makes $3.9M

Gonzalez has a 898 OPS with better defense. He makes $3.5M

Kearns has a 760 OPS. He makes $3.5M this year in a backloaded contract for $17.5M over three years.

Hamilton has a 939 OPS. He makes $380,000.

There is no debate that we are getting better return for less money. It would be fiscally irresponsible to pay Lopez and Kearns the kind of money they are making. It would have been better to non-tender them than keep them on the ball club.

If you want to say Krivsky could have gotten more, that is fine.

nate
05-11-2007, 07:08 AM
Krivsky simply did NOT get good value in return for the two regulars he traded away.

OK, so what could he have gotten that would've been accetpable?

RedEye
05-11-2007, 08:46 AM
OK, so what could he have gotten that would've been accetpable?

When I originally read the reports about The Trade, I had to keep rubbing my eyes because I was sure that it should have been just Kearns for Majewski and Bray or just Lopez for Majewski and Clayton... or something like that. Usually when you read a trade report, you can pretty much understand where each side was coming from in the deal, even if you don't agree with it for your team. Although I would not have been a fan of that deal either, it would have made more sense in terms of value. The WMP-Arroyo trade, for example--while it pained me to give up Wily Mo--was an understandable trade for both sides. Both the Red Sox and the Reds were dealing from a position of strength for a position of need, and neither one gave up too much for the return they got. Of course it ended up that the Reds got a better deal than we excpected (at least at the time this is being written) but I just don't think this will be the case with the July fiasco.

If you look at the other deals for relief pitching contemporaneous to The Trade (as many of our colleagues have pointed out), this point becomes even clearer. Even the Reds themselves managed to acquire other quality relievers for the stretch run without giving up much for them (I could list a few of these, but they've already been mentioned in the thread multiples times). Do I know exactly what offers Krivsky was entertaining on Kearns and Lopez? No, there is no way that I can at this point. But the evidence certainly points to a GM who made a rash decision for a variety of reasons. I think he'd take the deal back if he could, I honestly do.

RedEye
05-11-2007, 08:58 AM
Lopez has a 662 OPS coupled with his horrible fielding. He makes $3.9M

Gonzalez has a 898 OPS with better defense. He makes $3.5M


Small sample size. I guarantee you that A-Gon doesn't keep up that O all year. By September, their performances will be equally imbalanced to different sides of the ball--one will be D one-dimensional, the other O one-dimensional.


Kearns has a 760 OPS. He makes $3.5M this year in a backloaded contract for $17.5M over three years.

Hamilton has a 939 OPS. He makes $380,000.

As other posters have argued, Kearns' contract looks good compared to other quality ML outfielders. His injuries and sporadic ineffectiveness (probably a result of said injuries) have made him a relatively cheap 27 year-old run producer.

I hope Hamilton does keep up this pace. Krivsky is lucky to have found him because it makes his incompetence with The Trade look less egregious.


There is no debate that we are getting better return for less money. It would be fiscally irresponsible to pay Lopez and Kearns the kind of money they are making. It would have been better to non-tender them than keep them on the ball club.

Um... what? You think these guys had such little trade value that we should have simply let them go? I'm not sure how to respond to that. I firmly believe we could have and should have gotten something better for two 26 year-old position players doing the off season. We probably could have gotten at least a solid SP and a solid RP (I'm talking proven, uninjured players here) if not more, in return.

The worst part is to look at what we've done with the remaining several million. Yep, that's right, we've sunk it into ineffective relief pitching! Cormier (DFA), Stanton (soon to follow), and Coffey all got multi-year contracts to go with their 6+ ERA incompetence. I think the Coffey signing is defensible, mind you, but the other two completely baffle me. If Krivsky were so penny-wise, I would expect him to invest the piles of saved cash into something more, well, helpful for this team.

RedEye
05-11-2007, 09:18 AM
Your argument that the loss of Kearns and Lopez is hurting our line-up just does not stand up to scrutiny. We got production as good as they were delivering last year and are getting better production this year.

Depends on what kind of scrutiny you are talking about. If it is scrutiny determined to exonerate Krivsky for his mistakes, then you are right. If its scrutiny that looks at the fact that the Reds are now scoring fewer runs and have more lineup imbalance, then you are wrong.

Given the fact that Kearns and Lopez are now in a weaker line-up and a disadvantageous hitting ballpark, it is deceptive to pretend their current offensive production would be the same here as there. You can't just swap their numbers with Hamilton and Gonzo in a vacuum. Kearns is the offensive centerpiece on a terrible Washington team, but here he would be hitting between Griffey and Dunn in all probabilty, and seeing better pitches to hit. Lopez's power was much more translatable to GABP than it is to his new, cavernous home field.


Like I have been saying, if you think that the Reds could have gotten much more for those two and the opportunity costs of the trade are hurting us, then I think that is worthy of debate. I just don't see how anyone still clings to the notion that we are missing their (lackluster relative to salary) production.

Of course, this has always been my main contention. And it becomes worse when we consider the lackluster (relative to salary) production of Cormier, Stanton, Coffey, et al. That's what we were supposed to be losing Kearns and Lopez for: pitching. If you want to praise Krivsky for dumping two productive players for what amounts to basically a few million dollars, then at least admit that he has not used that money wisely for the most part. The Gonzalez deal is defensible (although I still believe he's just as overpriced as FeLo) but the rest of Krivsky's post-Trade dealings have been pretty awful with the exception, perhaps, of a few contract extensions.

The Snow Chief
05-11-2007, 10:02 AM
I'm going to move on to other topics because I think we have all beat this one to death. I agree with you that the bullpen has not been properly addressed.

But, as I have said several times, the decline in runs in September 2006 had little or nothing to do with Kearns and Lopez being gone. The 2007 team has not had poor run production - it has been the poor bullpen that has led to the losing. The only negative I see in the trade are the possible lost opportunity costs.

RedEye
05-11-2007, 10:12 AM
But, as I have said several times, the decline in runs in September 2006 had little or nothing to do with Kearns and Lopez being gone. The 2007 team has not had poor run production - it has been the poor bullpen that has led to the losing. The only negative I see in the trade are the possible lost opportunity costs.

Perhaps you are right about 2006, but the 2007 lineup has been overall less prolific and balanced than the 2006 edition with Kearns and Lopez. We miss Lopez's good OBP and speed setting the table just as we miss Kearns's right-handed power stick in the middle of the order. Hence the constant difficulties of trying to use Brandon Phillips in both roles intermittently--square peg, round holes.

Given that the main point of The Trade was to improve the bullpen--and that the bullpen is still the overwhelming problem we're talking about here--the "lost opportunity costs" you cite become all the more blatant.

I, too, am going to attempt retirement from this topic. I am sure that it will last well until the next outrageous poster claims that there is any way of "reassessing" the deal as an overall positive.

Thanks to all who participated, and I'll see you on the other threads! :beerme:

The Snow Chief
05-11-2007, 10:43 AM
I, too, am going to attempt retirement from this topic. I am sure that it will last well until the next outrageous poster claims that there is any way of "reassessing" the deal as an overall positive.



That's disappointing. We went 179 posts without name-calling and you conclude with that. Oh well, I enjoyed the discussion up until that point.

peterose00
05-11-2007, 12:58 PM
Okay, but your not listening to what I'm trying to say. When I say "nothing", what I mean is that The Trade returned the Reds "nothing that substantially improved the roster they already had." At this point, I don't think there is ANY denying that Majewski, Bray, and Thompson have done NOTHING to improve the ML roster. Brendan Harris and Royce Clayton are literally nothing to the roster now as well.

Again, I'm not arguing that Kearns and Lopez are Foster and Concepcion. Far from it. I'll even admit that we RedsZoners have a tendency to overrate both of them at times. Be that as it may, they are two everyday players in major league baseball that many other teams could have used on their rosters. Major league regulars do NOT grow on trees.

Yes, Krivsky did do a good job replacing those two guys with Hamilton and Gonzo. However, if you are going to take the "long view" on everything else Krivsky does, you must also admit that the "long view" on these two replacements is not nearly as clear as we might like it. Gonzo is a slightly above average defensive SS with a .298 lifetime OBP. There is a reason he has bounced around for a few years: his defense does not outweigh his relative lack of offense. He is an adequate stopgap IMO, not a long-term replacement. Hamilton, godlike as he might appear, has played ML baseball for a little over a month. I'd love to see him succeed, but part of me thinks he might go all Stanley Wilson on us in a month, a year, or two years. I think we need to accept the real possibility that these two guys may actually not either be long-term answers like we want them to be.

But, once again, let me get to my main point--which is the one you steadfastly refuse to hear no matter how many times I rephrase it:

Krivsky simply did NOT get good value in return for the two regulars he traded away. I'm not against trading them, I'm against trading them for such questionable players. Heck, Krivsky didn't even do due diligence on Majik's arm! I'm sorry, but no matter how good his acquisitions have been since that time, Krivsky still gave away two regular players for what amounts to bullpen fodder and a propsect in A ball. Only the most impossibly optimistic of "long views" can view this trade as anything but a disaster at this point.

I have stressed a key concept in my observations about this deal. Roster composition -- which stresses the fluid nature of building a team. Trades are never really made in a vacuum -- one move impacts another and there is an never-ending ongoing reevaluation of ny move -- right or wrong, good or bad....because the result is always changing.

People who insist that the acquisitions of Hamilton and AGonz could not possibly be connected in any way shape or form to the Kearns, Lopez deal are ignoring the concept of roster composition....team building if you will.

The Cardinals acquisition of Josh hancock was a clearly good move -- but that move now must be reassessed. Something drastic changed all that.

While never on a par with that tragedy, Krivsky's acquisition of Bray and Majewski and Thompson has been similarly fluid and changing right from the outset. First we learn the new information that Majewski was damaged goods, then Bray was injured, then recently Majewski's sister is killed in an ATV accident. Just as no one could have predicted Hancock's tragic death and the Cardinals and Walt Jockety's need to readjust -- none of us (including Wayne Krivsky) could've anticipated the things listed above about the players he acquired.

But a GM's job is to recognize this fluid nature of roster composition -- and adjust accordingly. Some GM's do better than others -- let's see how Krivsky did --

(1) He got a wold class defensive player at SS and emphasized that AGonz had had decent offensive years previously -- this has come true, giving us a SS that is better by any measurement than Lopez.

(2) He took a flyer on Josh Hamilton, listening to his manager and his manager's brother who had a personal relationship with Hancock of long-standing. This gave aus a player who as shown to be (so far) better than Kearns by any measurement -- at a fraction of the cost.

(3) We still have Bray and Majewski who are rehabing and coming backfrom the aforementioned issues.

(4) Thompson is ringing up numbers that are better than anything Homer Bailey did in Dayton.

Considering this fluid nature of roster composition, I think this all shows that Krivsky's decisions have been a rousing success. it is being reported as such in national publications more and more.

Someday I expect you to change your screen name and begin posting that you beleive that this was a great trade after all....so we all lived happily ever after.

peterose00
05-11-2007, 01:01 PM
I don't go in for that kind of relativism. It's not like we're talking about multiple parallel realities here. The deal got made, the rationale behind the deal was explained by the GM, it didn't work and now the team is feeling the pinch of not getting the appropriate amount of talent in return.

Some things just are. It's got nothing nothing to do with spin, half empty, half full or lighting.

We all live in an interdependent reality -- one thing impacts another -- nothing exists in a vacuum. It's all just one big Reds-elated ecosystem. Thankfully krivsky has the foresight to keep it all in balance -- with the acquisition of Hamilton and AGonz.

peterose00
05-11-2007, 01:03 PM
Your quote was responding to a general post about Krivsky improving this club overall.

On the field, they substantially improved on that above .500 record until the last week in August, when everyone else in the starting line-up went South. Look at the offensive numbers Kearns and Lopez are putting up, our struggles have nothing to do with their absences from our line-up.

Your argument that the loss of Kearns and Lopez is hurting our line-up just does not stand up to scrutiny. We got production as good as they were delivering last year and are getting better production this year.

Like I have been saying, if you think that the Reds could have gotten much more for those two and the opportunity costs of the trade are hurting us, then I think that is worthy of debate. I just don't see how anyone still clings to the notion that we are missing their (lackluster relative to salary) production.

Amen!!!

registerthis
05-11-2007, 04:49 PM
Considering this fluid nature of roster composition, I think this all shows that Krivsky's decisions have been a rousing success.

I'm sorry, but this is just utter nonsense. I've stayed away from this topic for a couple of days because the conversation was just going nowhere...but this just does not make any sense whatsoever.

Using this line of thinking, the return garnered from trades is inconsequential--it doesn't matter WHAT you get in return so long as you are somehow able to replace what was lost and stress the "fluid nature of roster composition." It's a completely bogus argument, because failing to get an adequate retun in a trade HARMS the team, sometimes immensely. If I trade you my car for a sack of beans, and manage to obtain another car because my father died and left it to me in his will, it doesn't negate the fact that I was a bloody moron for giving you my car in exchange for a sack of beans. It's nice that I got another car, but I've harmed myself, financially and otherwise, by failing to obtain maximum value for the car.

This deal operates the same way. The acquisitions of Hamilton and Gonzalez should be looked at completely independently of the Kearns/Lopez deal because they *took place* completely independently of the Kearns/Lopez deal. One has jack-all to do with the other. It is *nice* that Krivsky has been able (thus far) to adequately replace Kearns' and Lopez's production, but that speaks NOTHING of the inadequate return Krivsky received by trading them. The two have nothing to do with the other, and arguing otherwise is a fallacy.

As to the quote above, I don't know what bizarro world one must be inhabiting to look at the current state of the Reds' bullpen--the very focal point of last year's deal--and view it as a rousing success. "Debacle" is far more appropriate.

Ltlabner
05-11-2007, 05:00 PM
We all live in an interdependent reality -- one thing impacts another -- nothing exists in a vacuum. It's all just one big Reds-elated ecosystem. Thankfully krivsky has the foresight to keep it all in balance -- with the acquisition of Hamilton and AGonz.

Boy, I don't know what you just said.

http://icons.deepbox.com/media/icons/1138.gif

I was pro-trade so I know where you are comming from. But the return for Lopez and Kearns and who Krivsky replaced them with are unrealated.

More importantly, the short-term goal of "fixing" the bullpen was most definatley not acomplished via the trade, thus rendering it a failure in the short term.

Long term, remains to be seen.

The Snow Chief
05-11-2007, 05:12 PM
Using this line of thinking, the return garnered from trades is inconsequential--it doesn't matter WHAT you get in return so long as you are somehow able to replace what was lost and stress the "fluid nature of roster composition." It's a completely bogus argument, because failing to get an adequate retun in a trade HARMS the team, sometimes immensely. If I trade you my car for a sack of beans, and manage to obtain another car because my father died and left it to me in his will, it doesn't negate the fact that I was a bloody moron for giving you my car in exchange for a sack of beans. It's nice that I got another car, but I've harmed myself, financially and otherwise, by failing to obtain maximum value for the car.


Okay, I'm reneging on my vow to stay away. Your analogy is not accurate. You are giving an example of something you own free and clear and have no future payment obligations on. That is not the case with these players. They would have to be paid big money (more than their production merits IMO) each season. A more appropriate analogy would be purchasing a car, driving it around for a year, deciding that you don't like it or are tired of it, then selling it for the payoff amount on your car loan and purchasing another car that you like better (again, by financing it). Just like financing a car, when you "own" a player, you don't just have an asset. You have an asset with a corresponding liability (payment obligation). While you "gave away" an asset, you also lose a corresponding liability (a payment obligation).

The only way your analogy makes sense is if somehow we had it structured so Lopez and Kearns would play for us for free for the rest of their careers.

registerthis
05-11-2007, 05:54 PM
The only way your analogy makes sense is if somehow we had it structured so Lopez and Kearns would play for us for free for the rest of their careers.

Not at all. Sorry, but you're just finding different ways of saying the same thing, which is that the return on a trade doesn't matter. It most certainly does matter--it's the most critical component of the trade. If you are a team that makes a habit out of losing trades, then you are a team damning yourself to repeated second-division finishes.

The car analogy works insomuch as I've given away the car for far less than the car was worth--I was able to replace the car, but I still got completely ripped off. It's a horrible deal. Throwing in things like the projected cost of Kearns and Lopez just muddles the sad fact of that deal--that the return was terrible. No amount of philosophising, explaining or attempted justifications is going to change that.

My only ongoing concern from this deal is that Krivsky still feels that the return he got was equatable with what he surrendered--THAT is a truly scary thought. We can only hope Wayne learned his lesson from this, and makes more of an effort to garner a reasonable rate of return in future transactions.

The Snow Chief
05-11-2007, 06:15 PM
Not at all. Sorry, but you're just finding different ways of saying the same thing, which is that the return on a trade doesn't matter. It most certainly does matter--it's the most critical component of the trade. If you are a team that makes a habit out of losing trades, then you are a team damning yourself to repeated second-division finishes.

The car analogy works insomuch as I've given away the car for far less than the car was worth--I was able to replace the car, but I still got completely ripped off. It's a horrible deal. Throwing in things like the projected cost of Kearns and Lopez just muddles the sad fact of that deal--that the return was terrible. No amount of philosophising, explaining or attempted justifications is going to change that.

My only ongoing concern from this deal is that Krivsky still feels that the return he got was equatable with what he surrendered--THAT is a truly scary thought. We can only hope Wayne learned his lesson from this, and makes more of an effort to garner a reasonable rate of return in future transactions.

I'm not saying the return of the trade does not matter. What I am saying is that you have to factor in the removal of the concurrent liability along with the giving up the asset. That is why your car analogy does not apply - there is not concurrent payment liability - as there is with a MLB player.

HokieRed
05-11-2007, 07:10 PM
Let's pose another hypothetical that might help us think about this matter of return. First of all, I didn't like the trade when it went down, I still don't much like it, though I don't think it's what's hurting the team right now, I do think the Hamilton and Gonzalez acquisitions have to be looked at apart from the trade. But it might just be possible that the other GM's are not as high on the talent we traded as fans here tend to be. So here's a question. Say leatherpants Jim decides tomorrow that he just has to have Brendan Harris back and that he's tired of Lopez. He calls the D'Rays and offers Lopez straight up for Harris. You're the D'Rays GM. Do you make the deal?

AtomicDumpling
05-11-2007, 10:49 PM
Quote from RotoWorld:

Austin Kearns-OF- Nationals Feb. 1 - 2:20 pm et

Nationals agreed to terms with outfielder Austin Kearns on a three-year, $17.5million contract with a club option for 2010. A little pricier than anticipated, but still a pretty good move for Washington. Kearns will get $3.5 million this year, $5 million in 2008 and $8 million in 2009. The option, which would cover his second year of free agency, is worth $10 million and includes a $1 million buyout. There are no bonus clauses at all in the contract, which makes the guaranteed amount look a little more favorable for Washington.


This shows the experts thought Kearns was worth more than 3 years and $17.5 million. The point that Snow Chief and others neglect to mention is that Kearns was still only an arbitration player this year. The Nationals chose to sign him to a long term contract in order to buy out his first two years of free agency. Otherwise they would only have had to pay Kearns about $3 million or less this season. So when all the trade apologists claim that Kearns would have been too expensive for the Reds this year they are not being accurate.

The trade was ridiculed by almost every one of the experts last year. Whenever the trade is mentioned in recent publications it is still almost always called a very poor trade. The Hardball Times 2007 Annual, the Baseball Prospectus 2007, The Sporting News and several columnists on ESPN.com have all heavily criticized Krivsky in recent weeks for that Trade. They cite it as a major reason why the Reds failed to make the playoffs last year and why they haven't improved since the Trade was made. They squandered their most valuable trading chips. The only good comments I have heard about the Trade have all come from local Reds-friendly bloggers and Reds fans that think with their hearts. The national baseball community is nearly unanimously against the Trade.

The Snow Chief
05-11-2007, 11:16 PM
Quote from RotoWorld:

Austin Kearns-OF- Nationals Feb. 1 - 2:20 pm et

[I] They cite it as a major reason why the Reds failed to make the playoffs last year

If they cite their absences as the reason the Reds missed the playoffs, they are engaging in superficial analysis. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation - although it's an easy and mentally lazy exercise to automatically conclude that it does. The numbers don't lie. It was the poor hitting at ever other position (not SS and third outfielder) that doomed the Reds last September. If they cite the trade for that proposition, they have not looked at the stats.

registerthis
05-12-2007, 12:15 AM
I'm not saying the return of the trade does not matter. What I am saying is that you have to factor in the removal of the concurrent liability along with the giving up the asset. That is why your car analogy does not apply - there is not concurrent payment liability - as there is with a MLB player.

You're reading far too much into the analogy than is there. It's point was quite clear--giving up something for less value than the thing is worth is bad business. Period.

Removing Kearns' and Lopez's salaries is also a secondary part of this transaction. Since the move was *clearly* not a salary dump, that shouldn't even be a consideration. Payroll is expendable--players are not. I'm far more concerned with gaining back equal value on a trade than I am saving a few million in payroll that doesn't really go anywhere.

registerthis
05-12-2007, 12:16 AM
If they cite their absences as the reason the Reds missed the playoffs, they are engaging in superficial analysis.

It did nothing to help, which was the central part of the deal. A superficial analysis is attempting to justify this trade by make believing it wasn't designed to help the Reds win in 2006.

registerthis
05-12-2007, 12:20 AM
They squandered their most valuable trading chips.

That's where the analysis of the trade begins and ends. If the best Krivsky was offered for two above-average starting position players was a pair of middling relievers, a washed-out no-skills shortsop, and a low-grade prospect, then I'd argue that some type of collusion amongst all other major league owners was in order.

M2
05-12-2007, 01:37 AM
We all live in an interdependent reality -- one thing impacts another -- nothing exists in a vacuum. It's all just one big Reds-elated ecosystem. Thankfully krivsky has the foresight to keep it all in balance -- with the acquisition of Hamilton and AGonz.

That's fine, but it still doesn't get you last year back nor does it get you the talent you needed in exchange for Kearns and Lopez.

The problem I have with supposed "big picture" takes like this is that they're so narrow band, only tallying the plus column, rarely addressing the minus column and completely oblivious to opportunity cost. If you really want to address the "big picture" then you need to address why this team played better before the trade than since. At some point the W-L record needs to enter into the discussion.

The Reds right now are sitting at the bottom of the division in no small part to the players Krivsky didn't acquire for Kearns and Lopez. Getting rid of Kearns/Lopez and bringing in Hamilton/Gonzalez is a bit of a wheel spinning exercise. The Reds need to get better, not to remain in the also-ran ranks. Imagine if the Reds had picked up two guys who were playing significant roles for the team in exchange for Kearns and Lopez. That's what the goal should have been. Instead Krivsky knowingly took less talent in the hopes that it would pay off in 2006. It didn't work and the best he's been able to do is maybe drag the club back to where it was before the trade.

And if we're really talking "big picture," the Reds haven't suffered the worst part of it yet. The club still needs to add talent. It's multiple bodies away still. The farm system isn't going to be rushing to the rescue any time soon. The franchise doesn't have the cash to buy it's way out of a hole. How does Krivsky get those bodies? The answer probably is, he robs Peter to pay Paul. If the team continues to languish for another month, Krivsky's got to give serious thought to making a few rebuilding trades. Adam Dunn's 27, just entering what should be his prime. If you put enough talent around him, he could be part of something special. If you don't, then he might have spent his learning curve in Cincinnati only to be a central player in another team's something special.

The "big picture" is the Reds are still groping for respectability and other trades probably need to be made in order to bring in the talent Kearns and Lopez didn't fetch.

AmarilloRed
05-12-2007, 01:44 AM
We will not know the result of the trade until Bray and Majewski return from injury. If they turn out to be quality relievers when they come back, we will be
glad he made the trade. Ask yourselves if we could use 2 quality relievers now. I liked Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, but Lopez had problems at defense and Kearns was never the same player after he came back from injury. To call them above-average position players is being generous. We will all know whether Krivsky made a good trade or a bad trade after Bray and Majewki return from injury.

reds44
05-12-2007, 01:51 AM
We will not know the result of the trade until Bray and Majewski return from injury. If they turn out to be quality relievers when they come back, we will be
glad he made the trade. Ask yourselves if we could use 2 quality relievers now. I liked Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, but Lopez had problems at defense and Kearns was never the same player after he came back from injury. To call them above-average position players is being generous. We will all know whether Krivsky made a good trade or a bad trade after Bray and Majewki return from injury.
Gary Majewski is not hurt. I don't know why people keep saying he is. He has been pitching in AAA ALL season. He wasn't put on the DL this year, he's not on a rehab stint, he was simply optioned to AAA at the end of spring training because he wan't good enough to make the team. He's not hurt.

M2
05-12-2007, 01:54 AM
We will not know the result of the trade until Bray and Majewski return from injury. If they turn out to be quality relievers when they come back, we will be
glad he made the trade. Ask yourselves if we could use 2 quality relievers now. I liked Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez, but Lopez had problems at defense and Kearns was never the same player after he came back from injury. To call them above-average position players is being generous. We will all know whether Krivsky made a good trade or a bad trade after Bray and Majewki return from injury.

Bray's raw and likely has a good bit of learning at the major league level to do before anyone can dub him a "quality" reliever. We saw him last year, he was hardly a world beater.

Majewski is what he is, a guy who lacks an out pitch and subsequently flirts with a lot of danger because of it. You put a lot of guys on base and it catches up with you. He's not going to be changing his stripes, so I'm not sure why anyone needs more time to assess him. He needs a good bit of luck to succeed and there's literally hundreds of guys in that boat.

AtomicDumpling
05-12-2007, 02:04 AM
Gary Majewski is not hurt. I don't know why people keep saying he is. He has been pitching in AAA ALL season. He's not hurt.

Yep. He is not hurt. He is just not good enough to make the big-league team. I imagine that WK will give him another try this season just to attempt to salvage some of his (WK's) reputation after last year's disaster trade.

Majewski was horrible for the Reds last year. His ERA was 8.40 and his peripheral stats were awful. Batters hit .435 against him. LOL It wasn't surprising either considering his career K:BB ratio is terrible, his career BB:9 ratio is terrible and his career WHIP is terrible. This is especially significant because he has spent his career playing in a very strong pitchers' park. His peripherals will be even worse if he ever gets back to the GABP, which is a hitters' park. He is already 27 so he is not a "prospect".

DntKnw
05-12-2007, 08:49 AM
The trade was made to help us win in the short term so we need to look at the trade in the short term, i.e. what has the trade done to help us to win or caused us to lose this year.

Lopez is hitting .256/2/6 and Kearns is at .269/3/13. Neither of these guys would be helping the Reds win right now. Wagner is sitting on a 5+ ERA and hasn't been used in a week.

Bray is hurt and Magic, whether it's considered rehab or not, is stuck in AAA.

So, from a pure 2007 W-L perspective, I'm beginning to believe that the trade is fast approaching a non-event. It's becoming apparent that neither team got better or worse from the trade in the short term.

peterose00
05-12-2007, 04:10 PM
Gary Majewski is not hurt. I don't know why people keep saying he is. He has been pitching in AAA ALL season. He wasn't put on the DL this year, he's not on a rehab stint, he was simply optioned to AAA at the end of spring training because he wan't good enough to make the team. He's not hurt.

Actually Majewski was described as still having a weak arm coming out of spring training -- a lingering issue from what ailed him last year as well. If anyone is interested in an accurate portrayal of his situation, then that is the fact surreounding Majewski.

Call that "not hurt" if you want to but the same issue that he was suffering from at the end of last season is what is still plagueing him now. He needs work to rebuild his arm strength -- and that is far different from being not good enough to make the team.

Add to that the tragic death of his sister in an ATV accident and he is experiencing more than a few trials right now.

People can spin this anyway they want to fit the myths they are trying to perpetrate on others, but a healthy and strong Gary Majewski is better than what he has shown as he works to rebuild arm strength at Louisville -- and is better than two or three other optins the major league club is having to current turn to.

peterose00
05-12-2007, 04:20 PM
The trade was made to help us win in the short term so we need to look at the trade in the short term, i.e. what has the trade done to help us to win or caused us to lose this year.

Lopez is hitting .256/2/6 and Kearns is at .269/3/13. Neither of these guys would be helping the Reds win right now. Wagner is sitting on a 5+ ERA and hasn't been used in a week.

Bray is hurt and Magic, whether it's considered rehab or not, is stuck in AAA.

So, from a pure 2007 W-L perspective, I'm beginning to believe that the trade is fast approaching a non-event. It's becoming apparent that neither team got better or worse from the trade in the short term.

.....until one factors in what Krivsky has successfully accomplished with the roster flexibility that this deal afforded him. Consider this deal within the interrelated reality of roster composition -- and one must acknowledge that trading Lopez and kearns afforded Krivsky the opportunity to add AGonz and SS and hamilton in CF or RF -- better cheaper more productive players by any measurement.

A "nonevent" would have been to never make the deal at all and I guess some folks are insisting that the clb would be better off by never having traded these guys. I don't see that at all. Kearns, Lopez or Wagner have done nothing that shows that we would be better by having kept these guys -- as you point out, they haven't really done anything important offensively and Lopez's defense still sucks. We haven't had to pay the money they got afterward.

Whether one has to capacity to see the big picture and realize that this deal was interrelated to the signings of AGonz and Hamilton or not -- in either case, the club is better and Krivsky deserves and should be given the credit.

RedEye
05-12-2007, 04:35 PM
RedEye out of retirement here to add a few things.


Whether one has to capacity to see the big picture and realize that this deal was interrelated to the signings of AGonz and Hamilton or not -- in either case, the club is better and Krivsky deserves and should be given the credit

First of all, I do agree with you that Gonzo and Hamilton are to K's credit. I think we overpaid for Gonzo, but he's alright. Hamilton, along with Arroyo and Phillips, ranks among K's best moves since he's been here.

I'm not sure how you can argue that the club is better when you look at their record right now. Last year at this time, their record was almost the exact reverse and they were in first place. To me, that's not better.


A "nonevent" would have been to never make the deal at all and I guess some folks are insisting that the clb would be better off by never having traded these guys. I don't see that at all. Kearns, Lopez or Wagner have done nothing that shows that we would be better by having kept these guys -- as you point out, they haven't really done anything important offensively and Lopez's defense still sucks. We haven't had to pay the money they got afterward.

I don't think anyone is arguing about a "non-event" here. Most of us even agree that they should have been traded at some point.

What we are arguing is that K could and should have gotten better in return. Even The Snow Chief is willing to acknowledge this point as far as I can tell--he's just arguing that we might have "unexpectedly" gotten a just-okay deal out of this disaster--that's what he means by "reassessing."

That doesn't change the fact that the deal would look a whole lot better if we had all the things you mention (Hamilton, Gonzo, $, roster flexibility, whatever) IN ADDITION TO some better talent to work with at the major league level. It would be nice, for example, to have Chad Cordero, or maybe Jake Westbrook, or gosh, I dunno, some competent players proving their worth and reminding us why we got rid of Kearns and Lopez. Right now, all we've got is two average (at best) relievers who are hurt and a 21 year-old in A ball. That's just not enough!

I've done my best to acknowledge your points above. And I hate to say it, but without admitting that I have a point on this, you are simply refusing to acknowledge the whole picture. A trade, first and foremost and by definition, is about the commodities that a team exchanges with another team. That should, in some part at least, play a role in how we think about this thing. Otherwise, we're just not making sense.

Good-bye.

peterose00
05-12-2007, 04:43 PM
I'm not sure how you can argue that the club is better when you look at their record right now. Last year at this time, their record was almost the exact reverse and they were in first place. To me, that's not better.

There are so many dynamics at work here -- that the club's record from one season to the next at a given point in the season, especially early on (we are yet to reach the 1/4 point of this season) is not a direct comparative that means much.

Maybe I should clarify by saying that this club is better off with AGonz at SS and Hamilton in RF rather than having Polez and Kearns in those positions.

Are you suggesting that you would rather have Lopez and Kearns over AGonz and Hamilton at their respective positions? As we are all aware, the bullpen needs fixing -- and a team that has good starting pitching and this lineup with a decent bullpen is going to be infinitely better than last season's club.

RedEye
05-12-2007, 04:46 PM
There are so many dynamics at work here -- that the club's record from one season to the next at a given point in the season, especially early on (we are yet to reach the 1/4 point of this season) is not a direct comparative that means much.

Yeah, and the main dynamic is this: losing. You have yet to argue convincingly for ANY measure of how the team is better, so the challenge rests with you, my friend.


Maybe I should clarify by saying that this club is better off with AGonz at SS and Hamilton in RF rather than having Polez and Kearns in those positions.

Are you suggesting that you would rather have Lopez and Kearns over AGonz and Hamilton at their respective positions? As we are all aware, the bullpen needs fixing -- and a team that has good starting pitching and this lineup with a decent bullpen is going to be infinitely better than last season's club

Dude... please read my post in entirety before you respond with this type of comment. I said NOTHING of the sort. What I'm saying is that we should have gotten more in return. I read your posts, please read mine and try to understand them before you give me guff in return.

mth123
05-12-2007, 04:47 PM
.....until one factors in what Krivsky has successfully accomplished with the roster flexibility that this deal afforded him. Consider this deal within the interrelated reality of roster composition -- and one must acknowledge that trading Lopez and kearns afforded Krivsky the opportunity to add AGonz and SS and hamilton in CF or RF -- better cheaper more productive players by any measurement.

A "nonevent" would have been to never make the deal at all and I guess some folks are insisting that the clb would be better off by never having traded these guys. I don't see that at all. Kearns, Lopez or Wagner have done nothing that shows that we would be better by having kept these guys -- as you point out, they haven't really done anything important offensively and Lopez's defense still sucks. We haven't had to pay the money they got afterward.

Whether one has to capacity to see the big picture and realize that this deal was interrelated to the signings of AGonz and Hamilton or not -- in either case, the club is better and Krivsky deserves and should be given the credit.

I've been reading these posts and tried to stay out of it, but this talk of big picture is misguided.

First, baseball is a team sport so of course all events are related. You are right about that.

Second, most on here acknowledge that Kearns and Lopez were the guys to trade. It was obvious with arbitration looming, the poor defense at SS and the desperate need to open a spot for Griffey that gets him out of CF that moving Kearns and Lopez was needed. No one is talking about basic roster construction and economics which seems to be the crux of your argument.

Where the logic goes awry is the talk of the big picture improving because of this trade. The big picture is about increasing the overall talent base of the roster and organization. Is the roster construction better because a couple square pegs were removed from the round holes they were filling? Yes. Does that mean that those square pegs were to be sold for pennies on the dollar? Resounding no.

This was a team with 3 corner OF trying to man the field and a poor defensive SS hurting the IF defense, but those players are valued at other positions and for the offense they can provide. These are talented players in the right role and were given away without similarly talented players coming back. The Reds suffered a talent loss in this deal and even if Bray/Thompson develop it will still probably be true.

Don't confuse the basics of roster construction with a talent for talent exchange. For example, suppose you have 2 houses and no cash, it doesn't mean you give one away for pennies on the dollar to simply change your portfolio. You want to sell that extra house for market value and doing less is worse for the big picture of your net worth even if moving down to 1 house with some cash is the right idea.

WK sold his house (players) for less than it was worth and is short of cash (talent) now because of it. Right idea. Completely poor execution.

Screwball
05-12-2007, 07:03 PM
Man, this is the thread that just won't die.

peterose00
05-12-2007, 08:36 PM
I've been reading these posts and tried to stay out of it, but this talk of big picture is misguided.

First, baseball is a team sport so of course all events are related. You are right about that.

Second, most on here acknowledge that Kearns and Lopez were the guys to trade. It was obvious with arbitration looming, the poor defense at SS and the desperate need to open a spot for Griffey that gets him out of CF that moving Kearns and Lopez was needed. No one is talking about basic roster construction and economics which seems to be the crux of your argument.

Where the logic goes awry is the talk of the big picture improving because of this trade. The big picture is about increasing the overall talent base of the roster and organization. Is the roster construction better because a couple square pegs were removed from the round holes they were filling? Yes. Does that mean that those square pegs were to be sold for pennies on the dollar? Resounding no.

This was a team with 3 corner OF trying to man the field and a poor defensive SS hurting the IF defense, but those players are valued at other positions and for the offense they can provide. These are talented players in the right role and were given away without similarly talented players coming back. The Reds suffered a talent loss in this deal and even if Bray/Thompson develop it will still probably be true.

Don't confuse the basics of roster construction with a talent for talent exchange. For example, suppose you have 2 houses and no cash, it doesn't mean you give one away for pennies on the dollar to simply change your portfolio. You want to sell that extra house for market value and doing less is worse for the big picture of your net worth even if moving down to 1 house with some cash is the right idea.

WK sold his house (players) for less than it was worth and is short of cash (talent) now because of it. Right idea. Completely poor execution.

I just can't believe that people are rushing to judgement about the people Krivsky got The people we got have not played well -- but neither have the people he traded.

Darly Thompson has pitched better at Dayton than Homer Bailey did. He is 5-0 with an ERA of 0.96 -- his whip is 0.64. Now no one can say that will continue or it won't -- but if he got another potential Homer Bailey in the deal -- would that make a change in how you looked at this deal.

Brendan Harris was dealt for a PTBNL -- that player (who I don't know if that person has been named yet) is another piece of this acquisition.

Billy Bray is 23 years old; he pitched 27.2 innings last season after being acquired; his ERA was 4.23. I'm not ready to throw that kid under the bus and call him a meaningless acquisition yet. This year he has been rehabbing all year -- but that is not his fault. This is some talent here.

Gary Majewski is 27; he pitched a total of 15 innings in Cincinnati and was largely ineffective; as he has been this year. He was diagnosed with a tired arm last season and this spring there was a weakness detected. It was announced he should rebuild arm strength in Louisville (he has thrown 11 innings in AAA). Most recently has has been on begrievement leave as a result of the death of his sister.

Prior to the Reds acquisition of Majewski he had been a productive reliever in Washington -- throwing 86 innings and had a 2.93 ERA; he had fewer hits than innings and had 24 holds for the Nats.

Like Bray I am not ready to throw Majewski under the bus after only 15 major league innings. He was a productive reliever previously and is working on the probelms that were not revelaed previously by Leatherpants.

Now the people we traded have continued to perform poorly and there is no evidence that supports any notion that they would have helped the Reds. Ryan Wagner has continued to be a mediocre performer as well. Because of their length of time in the league, Lopez and Kearns received large pay increases -- which the Reds also avoided.

Instead Wayne Krivsky's ability to compose a roster with an eye towards the big picture he acquired AGonz and hamilton, improving the performance at both positions both offensively and defensivly at far less cost. We have a PTBNL coming; Bray and Majewski are rehabbing to be at a poi nt to be able to provide much needed bullpen help and Darryl Thompson has performed like he is the next-coming of....well, Homer Bailey.

Bad deal? I don't think so.

mth123
05-12-2007, 09:45 PM
I just can't believe that people are rushing to judgement about the people Krivsky got The people we got have not played well -- but neither have the people he traded.

Darly Thompson has pitched better at Dayton than Homer Bailey did. He is 5-0 with an ERA of 0.96 -- his whip is 0.64. Now no one can say that will continue or it won't -- but if he got another potential Homer Bailey in the deal -- would that make a change in how you looked at this deal.

Brendan Harris was dealt for a PTBNL -- that player (who I don't know if that person has been named yet) is another piece of this acquisition.

Billy Bray is 23 years old; he pitched 27.2 innings last season after being acquired; his ERA was 4.23. I'm not ready to throw that kid under the bus and call him a meaningless acquisition yet. This year he has been rehabbing all year -- but that is not his fault. This is some talent here.

Gary Majewski is 27; he pitched a total of 15 innings in Cincinnati and was largely ineffective; as he has been this year. He was diagnosed with a tired arm last season and this spring there was a weakness detected. It was announced he should rebuild arm strength in Louisville (he has thrown 11 innings in AAA). Most recently has has been on begrievement leave as a result of the death of his sister.

Prior to the Reds acquisition of Majewski he had been a productive reliever in Washington -- throwing 86 innings and had a 2.93 ERA; he had fewer hits than innings and had 24 holds for the Nats.

Like Bray I am not ready to throw Majewski under the bus after only 15 major league innings. He was a productive reliever previously and is working on the probelms that were not revelaed previously by Leatherpants.

Now the people we traded have continued to perform poorly and there is no evidence that supports any notion that they would have helped the Reds. Ryan Wagner has continued to be a mediocre performer as well. Because of their length of time in the league, Lopez and Kearns received large pay increases -- which the Reds also avoided.

Instead Wayne Krivsky's ability to compose a roster with an eye towards the big picture he acquired AGonz and hamilton, improving the performance at both positions both offensively and defensivly at far less cost. We have a PTBNL coming; Bray and Majewski are rehabbing to be at a poi nt to be able to provide much needed bullpen help and Darryl Thompson has performed like he is the next-coming of....well, Homer Bailey.

Bad deal? I don't think so.

First of all, my post clearly states that these were the right guys to trade. Not sure about anybody else, but I'm not claiming that the Reds should have kept these guys, I just disagree with a your assessment of the return. I believe that more valuable assets could have been acquired had these guys been dealt in a different deal, probably separately.

But lets clear-up a few things about the return in this deal:

1. Bray is a young pitcher with potential and so is Thompson. But Bray is not considered the second coming of Billy Wagner as a lefty reliever and Thompson was a guy who was rehabbing from surgery at the time he was acquired. Those two for Kearns maybe would have been ok but probably still not enough.

2. Majewski is a run of the mill RH roster filler who profiles as the 9th or 10th pitcher on a decent team. If he regains his form, he'll eat a few relief innings, maybe even some critical ones when he's going well ,but will generally be the type of pitcher who is readily available in the offseason as a free agent (probably a low dollar non-tender type) and not much different than the guys on the roster now or on-hand last year when he was acquired. He was hurt and due diligence may not have been done which further indicates a bad deal. He's certainly not anyone to trade much more than a PTBNL or a low level Minor leaguer for. Ryan Wagner straight up for Majewski would have been about right since the Reds had apparantly given up on Wagner. Better pitchers went for very little last year.

3. Brendan Harris was the epitome of throw in. This was a guy who couldn't crack the roster until late in the year and was not played much when he did. The Reds valued him so much that he was given no shot and then peddled for a PTBNL. When Aurilia took over at SS there was never a thought that Harris RH bat might be an alternative to Hatte who has no business playing against LH Pitching. BTW the PTBNL turned out to be a cash settlement. I haven't read or heard how much, but probably not much more than enough to pay for the clubhouse beer for a few days.

4. Clayton was a negative who couldn't keep the starting SS job that he was acquired to fill. This board knew it and raised the flag immediately upon acquisition. Not sure why a major league GM viewed him as a capable SS at the time. If Royce Clayton was a pitcher he'd be Eric Milton.

peterose00
05-12-2007, 10:37 PM
Yeah, and the main dynamic is this: losing. You have yet to argue convincingly for ANY measure of how the team is better, so the challenge rests with you, my friend.



Dude... please read my post in entirety before you respond with this type of comment. I said NOTHING of the sort. What I'm saying is that we should have gotten more in return. I read your posts, please read mine and try to understand them before you give me guff in return.

I think you are confusing responses that convincingly refute your thoughts with "guff"

peterose00
05-12-2007, 10:45 PM
First of all, my post clearly states that these were the right guys to trade. Not sure about anybody else, but I'm not claiming that the Reds should have kept these guys, I just disagree with a your assessment of the return. I believe that more valuable assets could have been acquired had these guys been dealt in a different deal, probably separately.

But lets clear-up a few things about the return in this deal:

1. Bray is a young pitcher with potential and so is Thompson. But Bray is not considered the second coming of Billy Wagner as a lefty reliever and Thompson was a guy who was rehabbing from surgery at the time he was acquired. Those two for Kearns maybe would have been ok but probably still not enough. Which is your opinion -- not a statement of fact.

2. Majewski is a run of the mill RH roster filler who profiles as the 9th or 10th pitcher on a decent team. If he regains his form, he'll eat a few relief innings, maybe even some critical ones when he's going well ,but will generally be the type of pitcher who is readily available in the offseason as a free agent (probably a low dollar non-tender type) and not much different than the guys on the roster now or on-hand last year when he was acquired. He was hurt and due diligence may not have been done which further indicates a bad deal. He's certainly not anyone to trade much more than a PTBNL or a low level Minor leaguer for. Ryan Wagner straight up for Majewski would have been about right since the Reds had apparantly given up on Wagner. Better pitchers went for very little last year. Majewski threw 86 innings with an ERA in the mid-3.00's when he was acquired. Wagner had an ERA in the 5.00's in AAA. You are saying things that make no sense.

3. Brendan Harris was the epitome of throw in. This was a guy who couldn't crack the roster until late in the year and was not played much when he did. The Reds valued him so much that he was given no shot and then peddled for a PTBNL. When Aurilia took over at SS there was never a thought that Harris RH bat might be an alternative to Hatte who has no business playing against LH Pitching. BTW the PTBNL turned out to be a cash settlement. I haven't read or heard how much, but probably not much more than enough to pay for the clubhouse beer for a few days. You don't know that -- but saying something that you have no idea is true is one way to try to substanbtiate your claims. But that doesn't make them correct.

4. Clayton was a negative who couldn't keep the starting SS job that he was acquired to fill. This board knew it and raised the flag immediately upon acquisition. Not sure why a major league GM viewed him as a capable SS at the time. If Royce Clayton was a pitcher he'd be Eric Milton. You are saying the same thing over and over -- but it makes no sense. You maintain that if these players we acquired didn't perform well after we acquired them, then they were of no value. Yet the people we traded performed worst and other even on the rister didn't do too well either after the trade.

Clayton didn't do well once he was acquired last year. But neither did Adam Dunn after Clayton was acquired. That doesn't mean Dunn has no value whatsoever.

M2
05-12-2007, 11:36 PM
You are saying the same thing over and over -- but it makes no sense. You maintain that if these players we acquired didn't perform well after we acquired them, then they were of no value. Yet the people we traded performed worst and other even on the rister didn't do too well either after the trade.

With the players you acquire, its about what they do afterward. With the players you trade, it's about maximizing their value at the moment you trade them. Lose sight of either of those and you could be the GM of a 15-22 baseball team that's sinking quickly.

RedEye
05-13-2007, 12:21 AM
I think you are confusing responses that convincingly refute your thoughts with "guff"

Nope. You actually didn't even respond to what I said. That's why I'm calling it guff. I've acknowledged which parts of your argument I thought were sound (check back a few posts). I've also narrowed mine to one point, which I will repeat again:

KRIVSKY DID NOT GET ENOUGH IN RETURN FOR THOSE TWO PLAYERS AT THE TIME HE DEALT THEM.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 10:15 AM
Nope. You actually didn't even respond to what I said. That's why I'm calling it guff. I've acknowledged which parts of your argument I thought were sound (check back a few posts). I've also narrowed mine to one point, which I will repeat again:

KRIVSKY DID NOT GET ENOUGH IN RETURN FOR THOSE TWO PLAYERS AT THE TIME HE DEALT THEM.

And I have clearly stated that this is your opinion, which you are entitled to as much as I am entitled to mine -- but that is all it is. Your opinion is not a fact.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 10:16 AM
With the players you acquire, its about what they do afterward. With the players you trade, it's about maximizing their value at the moment you trade them. Lose sight of either of those and you could be the GM of a 15-22 baseball team that's sinking quickly.

If a seven game losing streak accomplishes anything positive, it may very well be that it pushes the less knowledgable and casual fan away. That could be a good thing.

Always Red
05-13-2007, 01:21 PM
If a seven game losing streak accomplishes anything positive, it may very well be that it pushes the less knowledgable and casual fan away. That could be a good thing.

?

Since when is pushing fans away a good thing?

Even "dumb" fans pay good money to come to the park and follow the Reds, which allows a larger payroll, right?

The Cubs have a ton of fans who know virtually nothing about baseball. They keep the place filled, keep the beer flowing, keep buying the jersies, and it's part of what allows the Cubs to spend a quarter billion dollars in the offseason.

It's all in how you spend that quarter billion. But the fact that it's coming in is ALWAYS a good thing...

AtomicDumpling
05-13-2007, 02:15 PM
If Krivsky were to trade Homer Bailey for a $1 Lotto ticket peterose00 would say it was a great deal because we might win $100,000,000 with that ticket.

:rolleyes: :bash: :doh: :help:

Ron Madden
05-13-2007, 02:20 PM
If Krivsky were to trade Homer Bailey for a $1 Lotto ticket peterose00 would say it was a great deal because we might win $100,000,000 with that ticket.

He would'nt be alone.

DTCromer
05-13-2007, 02:35 PM
With the players you acquire, its about what they do afterward. With the players you trade, it's about maximizing their value at the moment you trade them. Lose sight of either of those and you could be the GM of a 15-22 baseball team that's sinking quickly.



There in lies the problem. Someone like me never thought Lopez and Kearns were really THAT valuable. Lopez's best HR year counted for 23 and his next best is 9. He has a whopping 106 games with the Nationals and only 4 HR's with them. You can't blame the ballpark for his lack of production because 26 of his career 58 HR's have been on the road.

Kearns is basically a poor man's Adam Dunn at the plate, but an excellent defensive OF. We lose a little with his defense, but Freel/Hamilton easily make up most of that IMO.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 02:45 PM
?

Since when is pushing fans away a good thing?

Even "dumb" fans pay good money to come to the park and follow the Reds, which allows a larger payroll, right?

The Cubs have a ton of fans who know virtually nothing about baseball. They keep the place filled, keep the beer flowing, keep buying the jersies, and it's part of what allows the Cubs to spend a quarter billion dollars in the offseason.

It's all in how you spend that quarter billion. But the fact that it's coming in is ALWAYS a good thing...

I was talking about the casual, less knowledgable fANS around here.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 02:48 PM
If Krivsky were to trade Homer Bailey for a $1 Lotto ticket peterose00 would say it was a great deal because we might win $100,000,000 with that ticket.

:rolleyes: :bash: :doh: :help:

Not to make this persnal, but atomic spelled backwards is cimota = which means foolish or fool in hawaiian

peterose00
05-13-2007, 02:56 PM
There in lies the problem. Someone like me never thought Lopez and Kearns were really THAT valuable. Lopez's best HR year counted for 23 and his next best is 9. He has a whopping 106 games with the Nationals and only 4 HR's with them. You can't blame the ballpark for his lack of production because 26 of his career 58 HR's have been on the road.

Kearns is basically a poor man's Adam Dunn at the plate, but an excellent defensive OF. We lose a little with his defense, but Freel/Hamilton easily make up most of that IMO.

Very good point...but let me warn you, some folks won't acknowledge the truth you are pointing out. Because if they did, they would have to admit to being so wrong about knocking this deal so much.

Only in Cincinnati were Kearns and to a lesser degree Lopez seen with the kind of elevated value. Anywhere else on the planet, these two were average and even below average players at their respective positions -- talented and full of potential, but never realized before or since the "trade".

I guarantee you, their value is even less now -- because they still have not performed, their liabilities are exposed even to a greater degree and they are far more expensive than they were before.

I can't believe that people are not lining up to thank Krivsky for dumping these two at all right before they became even more expensive, less productive and even less desirable.

hebroncougar
05-13-2007, 04:08 PM
Not to make this persnal, but atomic spelled backwards is cimota = which means foolish or fool in hawaiian

Why the insults??? This is a message board, people are going to have differing opinions. Relax.

hebroncougar
05-13-2007, 04:11 PM
Very good point...but let me warn you, some folks won't acknowledge the truth you are pointing out. Because if they did, they would have to admit to being so wrong about knocking this deal so much.

Only in Cincinnati were Kearns and to a lesser degree Lopez seen with the kind of elevated value. Anywhere else on the planet, these two were average and even below average players at their respective positions -- talented and full of potential, but never realized before or since the "trade".

I guarantee you, their value is even less now -- because they still have not performed, their liabilities are exposed even to a greater degree and they are far more expensive than they were before.

I can't believe that people are not lining up to thank Krivsky for dumping these two at all right before they became even more expensive, less productive and even less desirable.


The "truth" you speak of is only an opinion. Most people would probably agree they overpaid to get 2 cheap, MR's. None of the players that were traded have been very productive at the ML level for either side. The difference at this point is Lopez and Kearns have at least been able to play some games.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 04:35 PM
The "truth" you speak of is only an opinion. Most people would probably agree they overpaid to get 2 cheap, MR's. None of the players that were traded have been very productive at the ML level for either side. The difference at this point is Lopez and Kearns have at least been able to play some games.

If the guys we got are hurt, I don't want them pitching right now. Why would you?

peterose00
05-13-2007, 04:35 PM
Why the insults??? This is a message board, people are going to have differing opinions. Relax.

Stating a fact.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 04:36 PM
He would'nt be alone.

LOL

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

hebroncougar
05-13-2007, 05:38 PM
If the guys we got are hurt, I don't want them pitching right now. Why would you?


Point out to me where I said I would want them to play if they are hurt.

M2
05-13-2007, 05:56 PM
If a seven game losing streak accomplishes anything positive, it may very well be that it pushes the less knowledgable and casual fan away. That could be a good thing.

Yep, always good to chase away the fans. They ruin everything.

Of course, you're skirting the issue. The Reds aren't a very good baseball team and haven't been in the wake of the trade. Pretty much takes the Schroedinger's Cat right out of your quantum team building argument.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 06:07 PM
Point out to me where I said I would want them to play if they are hurt.

I thought you were implying that -- so many of the things you have tried to say to make this look like a bad trade have made as much sense as that.:rolleyes:

peterose00
05-13-2007, 06:08 PM
Yep, always good to chase away the fans. They ruin everything.

Of course, you're skirting the issue. The Reds aren't a very good baseball team and haven't been in the wake of the trade. Pretty much takes the Schroedinger's Cat right out of your quantum team building argument.

Bad teams find allot of ways to lose.

hebroncougar
05-13-2007, 06:27 PM
I thought you were implying that -- so many of the things you have tried to say to make this look like a bad trade have made as much sense as that.:rolleyes:


The "truth" you speak of is only an opinion. Most people would probably agree they overpaid to get 2 cheap, MR's. None of the players that were traded have been very productive at the ML level for either side. The difference at this point is Lopez and Kearns have at least been able to play some games.

Here's what I said. That's the only thing I've mentioned on the trade. I never even stated that was MY opinion. Someone's truth about the trade is total fiction to someone else. I was just stating facts. I said "most people". IMO the jury is still out on the trade, IF Bray and Majewski become important cogs in the wheel of a successful bullpen, then the Reds could come out on top. And just for the record (so you don't make anymore of your own deductions from my posts), I think Lopez was way, way overvalued by Reds fans. His defense at SS was atrocious. But hey, keep making your own deductions.:cool:

peterose00
05-13-2007, 06:33 PM
Here's what I said. That's the only thing I've mentioned on the trade. I never even stated that was MY opinion. Someone's truth about the trade is total fiction to someone else. I was just stating facts. I said "most people". IMO the jury is still out on the trade, IF Bray and Majewski become important cogs in the wheel of a successful bullpen, then the Reds could come out on top. And just for the record (so you don't make anymore of your own deductions from my posts), I think Lopez was way, way overvalued by Reds fans. His defense at SS was atrocious. But hey, keep making your own deductions.:cool:

I'm with you on most points.

M2
05-13-2007, 07:12 PM
Bad teams find allot of ways to lose.

They sure do. Might help if they had more talent.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 07:14 PM
They sure do. Might help if they had more talent.

This may sound funny -- but in every way, this team is better except for the bullpen. Yet the bullpen has been so bad -- it has trashed everything else that has been pretty good.

M2
05-13-2007, 07:18 PM
This may sound funny -- but in every way, this team is better except for the bullpen. Yet the bullpen has been so bad -- it has trashed everything else that has been pretty good.

The team doesn't score more than it did before the trade, the OPS is down 40 points. It's got a .689 DER, that's pretty much a wash with the pre-trade model.

The bullpen is major problem, no doubt about it, but the problems extend much deeper.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 07:22 PM
The team doesn't score more than it did before the trade. It's got a .689 DER, that's pretty much a wash with the pre-trade model.

The bullpen is major problem, no doubt about it, but the problems extend much deeper.

They are in a serious funk -- but I do believe they are a better defensive team than this time last year (I know that statistically that has not been so to date). I think the offense is as good or better. The starting pitching has been good.

I just think Vince Scully said a mouthful when he stated that "the Reds bullpen is showing us everything we had heard about it"

M2
05-13-2007, 07:32 PM
They are in a serious funk -- but I do believe they are a better defensive team than this time last year (I know that statistically that has not been so to date). I think the offense is as good or better. The starting pitching has been good.

I just think Vince Scully said a mouthful when he stated that "the Reds bullpen is showing us everything we had heard about it"

I'm hopeful the defense will play better. Yet the offense is not nearly as good. It's not scoring anything close to 800 runs this year (current pace 750) and that's the model that was in place pre-trade (they were on an 815 pace). The starting pitching has been good so far, but if Lohse and Belisle turn into pumpkins, you're back to the pre-trade situation with that as well (or worse if something's physically wrong with Harang).

Anyway, it's telling that the bullpen is still putrid even when The Trade was geared at fixing it. Let's face it, if a season after you traded two everyday players for two bullpen arms, the bullpen is still awful, then you blew the trade.

DTCromer
05-13-2007, 07:36 PM
The "truth" you speak of is only an opinion. Most people would probably agree they overpaid to get 2 cheap, MR's. None of the players that were traded have been very productive at the ML level for either side. The difference at this point is Lopez and Kearns have at least been able to play some games.


Wouldn't you think a lot of people would overpay for some good middle relievers right now?

DTCromer
05-13-2007, 07:42 PM
Anyway, it's telling that the bullpen is still putrid even when The Trade was geared at fixing it. Let's face it, if a season after you traded two everyday players for two bullpen arms, the bullpen is still awful, then you blew the trade.

That's the problem. People like you who think the trade is awful only think it's awful because the two main players in the deal are injured. GM's injury can be questioned, but Bray's is just a freak accident and you can't predict them.

And I'm tired of hearing the "we traded 2 everyday players" argument. So what? I'd do anything to give up those contracts/players for two good relievers right now. . . wouldn't you?

M2
05-13-2007, 07:56 PM
That's the problem. People like you who think the trade is awful only think it's awful because the two main players in the deal are injured. GM's injury can be questioned, but Bray's is just a freak accident and you can't predict them.

And I'm tired of hearing the "we traded 2 everyday players" argument. So what? I'd do anything to give up those contracts/players for two good relievers right now. . . wouldn't you?

Once again, Gary Majewski is NOT injured. He's just not a good reliever or even a reasonable facsimile of a good reliever. He's not even a good reliever in AAA.

Bray maybe someday will be a good reliever, but you saw him pitch last year. He wasn't anything special. Even if he were healthy, he'd probably still be taking his lumps.

Meanwhile I just looked up a list which ranked Austin Kearns as the 10th best RF in MLB for THIS season to date. If I trade that, I want a closer. I mean, it's great that you'd be willing to trade Kearns and Lopez for something the Reds didn't get for Kearns and Lopez, but at some point you need to recognize the sizable gap between what you'd have been willing to do and what was done.

I only think the trade was awful because it always was and because it missed its window for success last year and because the Reds are now short on talent as a result of it.

peterose00
05-13-2007, 10:04 PM
Once again, Gary Majewski is NOT injured. He's just not a good reliever or even a reasonable facsimile of a good reliever. He's not even a good reliever in AAA.

Bray maybe someday will be a good reliever, but you saw him pitch last year. He wasn't anything special. Even if he were healthy, he'd probably still be taking his lumps.

Meanwhile I just looked up a list which ranked Austin Kearns as the 10th best RF in MLB for THIS season to date. If I trade that, I want a closer. I mean, it's great that you'd be willing to trade Kearns and Lopez for something the Reds didn't get for Kearns and Lopez, but at some point you need to recognize the sizable gap between what you'd have been willing to do and what was done.

I only think the trade was awful because it always was and because it missed its window for success last year and because the Reds are now short on talent as a result of it.

Call him injured or not -- but coming out of spring training it was announced that Majewski had a weak arm and needed to rebuild his arm strength. That is precisely what he is doing.

If Aaron Harang or Bronson Arroyo were diagnosed with a weak arm, they would be doing the exact same thing.

Whether you agree that is an injury or not makes no difference to anyone living currently on the planet.

AtomicDumpling
05-13-2007, 11:32 PM
Call him injured or not -- but coming out of spring training it was announced that Majewski had a weak arm and needed to rebuild his arm strength. That is precisely what he is doing.

If Aaron Harang or Bronson Arroyo were diagnosed with a weak arm, they would be doing the exact same thing.

Whether you agree that is an injury or not makes no difference to anyone living currently on the planet.

It does make a difference to me and I am an Earthling.

The fact that Majewski has been pitching all season proves he isn't injured. He has been pitching for Louisville for 6 weeks already. The fact he hasn't been called up to the Reds yet given the horrible performance of our bullpen proves even Wayne Krivsky has lost all faith in the centerpiece of The Trade.

Screwball
05-13-2007, 11:54 PM
He has been pitching for Louisville for 6 weeks already. The fact he hasn't been called up to the Reds yet given the horrible performance of our bullpen proves even Wayne Krivsky has lost all faith in the centerpiece of The Trade.

It is very telling. How he hasn't been given a shot to throw some more gas on the fire is pretty puzzling.

peterose00
05-14-2007, 12:00 AM
It does make a difference to me and I am an Earthling.

The fact that Majewski has been pitching all season proves he isn't injured. He has been pitching for Louisville for 6 weeks already. The fact he hasn't been called up to the Reds yet given the horrible performance of our bullpen proves even Wayne Krivsky has lost all faith in the centerpiece of The Trade.

I don't mean to be cruel, but that is absolutely not true. He is rebuilding his arm, getting his velocity back. I would rather he do that in Louisville than have him do it in Cincy. Plus his sister was killed in an ATV accident. That has kept him away and preoccupied as well.

Call that what you want -- but remember what atomic in reverse spells in hawaiian = fool.

M2
05-14-2007, 12:34 AM
Call him injured or not -- but coming out of spring training it was announced that Majewski had a weak arm and needed to rebuild his arm strength. That is precisely what he is doing.

If Aaron Harang or Bronson Arroyo were diagnosed with a weak arm, they would be doing the exact same thing.

Whether you agree that is an injury or not makes no difference to anyone living currently on the planet.

Goody, does that mean when he gets healthy that the Reds get themselves a reliever with a 1.46 WHIP and 5.33 K/9? Because that's what he's done in the majors to date.

Majewski's got a weak arm all right. Problem is he could spend an eternity in Louisville and not fix it.

membengal
05-14-2007, 06:05 AM
Call that what you want -- but remember what atomic in reverse spells in hawaiian = fool.

This is an example of what this board strives NOT to be. And it's the second time you have done this in this discussion.

Always Red
05-14-2007, 09:23 AM
Call that what you want -- but remember what atomic in reverse spells in hawaiian = fool.

That was uncalled for. :thumbdown

Just because someone was an opinion that differs from yours, it does not make him a fool.

zombie-a-go-go
05-14-2007, 09:34 AM
Call that what you want -- but remember what atomic in reverse spells in hawaiian = fool.

That's about enough out of you.

Banned.

hebroncougar
05-14-2007, 09:47 AM
That's about enough out of you.

Banned.

Agreed, no need for insults.