PDA

View Full Version : Felo's value continues to drop



westofyou
03-22-2008, 11:25 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032102755.html


PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla., March 21 -- The Washington Nationals insist they will not be pressured into a trade of second baseman Felipe López just because López has publicly declared himself unwilling to sit on their bench -- and they have also strongly suggested that is where López would be if the season started today.However, two rival baseball executives confirmed Friday that the Nationals are actively shopping López, and the Chicago Cubs are among the teams that have had a scout following the Nationals in recent days -- including Friday, when López started at second base against the New York Mets and went 1 for 3 with a single and made one error, his fourth of the spring.

The Cubs are seeking a second baseman, and have been in discussions with the Baltimore Orioles for months regarding Brian Roberts. But Cubs officials have expressed doubt about a deal being reached with the Orioles, and apparently are exploring additional possibilities.

At the start of camp, the Nationals declared firmly that Ronnie Belliard was their starting second baseman and veteran Cristian Guzmán their starting shortstop -- with López, who can play either position, on the outside looking in.

"The performance [this spring] on the field has corroborated [that] position," General Manager Jim Bowden said. "The best player plays."

López's single Friday raised his spring batting average to .208 with one homer and three RBI, but Belliard is hitting .439 with three homers and seven RBI in 41 at-bats.

On Tuesday, López bristled at reporters' suggestion that he might be asked to sit on the bench, saying,

"Bench? . . . Hell, no."

Asked Friday about López's comment, Manager Manny Acta said: "I'm going to try to keep my best team on the field and do what I can to keep as many guys involved, but attitude is a choice and I can only control mine. . . . I'm not going to make my decision based on what a guy says in the paper, or what [is written in the media] or what any of those guys thin



He's a brave man wanting to play behind a rotation of Odalis Perez, Matt Chico, Tim Redding, Jason Bergmann and Shawn Hill.

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 11:54 AM
I guess THE TRADE complainers might finally admit that FeLo and Majewski can be considered THE WASH. Or should we mention the millions of dollars more the Nationals paid on their half of THE WASH?

On calling Majewski-FeLo THE WASH... there is always hope that Gary might get it together while still wearing a REDS uniform. If FeLo is set free for next-to-nothing, then the best the Nats got was notta. Other than saving millions in the future for notta production, lotta errors and lotta complaining.

Interesting... as time passes after a "big"(?) trade. Interesting.

VR
03-22-2008, 11:56 AM
At the start of camp, the Nationals declared firmly that Ronnie Belliard was their starting second baseman and veteran Cristian Guzmán their starting shortstop -- with López, who can play either position, on the outside looking in.


Nothing can quite capture how far FeLo has fallen better that that situation. Wow.

I'd guess FeLo used a little magic cream during his good years.

westofyou
03-22-2008, 12:01 PM
I have a Felipe Bobblehead... that night also happened to be the first game he didn't appear in for the Reds that season... Ironic... yes?

Bill James in his new book pretty much goes all out and slams Felipe's shortstop quality, even saying.. I used to wonder what an infield wold be like if you stuck an average 3b type of player at SS and waited to see what the dividends were. Now I know, and it's not good.

chicoruiz
03-22-2008, 12:06 PM
Let me channel the spirit of the great Krusty for a moment...

I'd send Belisle and Hanigan to Washington for FeLo and Jesus Flores. The I'd flip FeLo to Baltimore along with Ross and Coffey for Ramon Hernandez and a prospect. The Nats get a badly needed starter, the O's fill their gaping hole at SS, and we get a catcher for now, and one for later. Brilliant, I tell you...

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 12:11 PM
the O's fill their gaping hole at SS...

If you fill a hole with a hole, you still have a hole. Might be faulty logic on my part, but not in ERROR. Speaking of ERRORS...

:)

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 12:36 PM
From the infamous thread, http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48529&highlight=Kearns, about THE TRADE. No poster names mentioned to protect their reputations...


If we trade Kearns or Lopez by themselves and get this return, we get screwed. Both? This could be as bad any trade in Reds history. Horrific.

Krivsky gave actual talent for crap.

Traded two top young offensive talents...

I want Jim Bowden back.

This trade may have saved Bowden's career.

I've been checking out other teams message board and we arent the only ones who think the Reds got ripped off.

That's just unspeakably bad. I mean, boycott the team bad. Krivsky has totally embarassed himself.

...we all root for one of the most consistently stupid franchises in baseball...

We sacraficed 2 GREAT HITTERS

this trade has the potential to be on par with the Frank Robinson deal as far as disasters go.

Anyone who thinks Clayton/Lopez is anywhere close to a near wash needs some kind of medical exam.

Matt700wlw
03-22-2008, 12:40 PM
The trade was a turd...if Bray ends up being good, the Reds win...I guess.

Oh yeah, there's Darryl Thompson too, right?

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2008, 12:47 PM
It was and always will be about the opportunity costs. The Reds did move the right players... the guys that didn't fit well long term. But they should have gotten more. Bray was and is the only particularly interesting player in the return package. The return was a dud.... even if the Nat's players turned completely sour.

jmcclain19
03-22-2008, 12:57 PM
As has been repeated many times - no matter which way you slice it and regardless of how the chips end up falling - trading two of your best starting eight for two relievers is a stupid idea on a colossal scale. Even more so when those two are in their Arb years.

WMR
03-22-2008, 01:03 PM
Josh and Austin are exactly right: It ISN'T about what AK and FeLo turned into at Washington. It's about the players that were targeted to come back for them. What their value is right now is irrelevant. What their value was at the time of the trade is what mattered then, matters now, and will always matter when calculating just how disastrous "THE TRADE" truly was.

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 01:58 PM
And it must be asked...

Did MLB general managers at that time think as highly of AK and FeLo as some of the members of this great site? I don't know b/c I do not know GMs (not even one). Can anyone on here claim to know the GMs at that time and know what the opinion/return was/for AK and FeLo?

Perhaps I am duped, but I'd guess that Krivsky talked to more than one MLB team at that time about a deal for AK, for FeLO or for both. If he didn't, then god help the fans of this organization. This, that and the other. I can claim lots of things. Could have, would have, should have. I can claim lots of things. I have no proof that GM1 or GM2 offered something better for those two ex-REDS. Does anyone else have the proof that I don't have?

I do know one thing. The careers of all involved are not done. Therefore, the end of THE TRADE has not come. I do know that one team has spent millions more dollars for nowhere near the value of those extra dollars spent. Re-read THE TRADE thread and see that there were some who had the foresight to understand that point... and the point that many at this great site were way overvaluing AK and FeLo. And it seems that the overvaluing thing is still here over 1-1/2 years later.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2008, 02:13 PM
I certainly didn't expect a monster return, but Austin Kearns has proven to be an above average starting righ fielder at a reasonable contract. That has value. Certainly more than Bray and a bunch of chaff. Remember, the whole trade was really centred around Kearns and Majewski. The whole concept was flawed in the return.

Lopez' star has fallen quite a bit, and certainly didn't have as much on the open market, but he still basically managed to get Bray in the fold. That part of the trade doesn't bug me so much.

But the end result was a solid starting OF (and honestly, Lopez shouldn't have fallen that hard) for nothing more than a relief prospect and filler. Overvauling or not, that trade was not a good idea. It hurt the team then (and you can argue that it cost them a playoff spot), and certainly hasn't helped us as much in the long run as it should have. If that was the best return available, Krivsky should have stayed pat. We were in the middle of a playoff run, and that trade hurt big time with downgrades at both SS and RF, meanwhile, the guys brought back didn't help the pen one iota.

mth123
03-22-2008, 02:15 PM
I certainly didn't expect a monster return, but Austin Kearns has proven to be an above average starting righ fielder at a reasonable contract. That has value. Certainly more than Bray and a bunch of chaff. Remember, the whole trade was really centred around Kearns and Majewski. The whole concept was flawed in the return.

Lopez' star has fallen quite a bit, and certainly didn't have as much on the open market, but he still basically managed to get Bray in the fold. That part of the trade doesn't bug me so much.

But the end result was a solid starting OF (and honestly, Lopez shouldn't have fallen that hard) for nothing more than a relief prospect and filler. Overvauling or not, that trade was not a good idea. It hurt the team then (and you can argue that it cost them a playoff spot), and certainly hasn't helped us as much in the long run as it should have.

Exactly.

LoganBuck
03-22-2008, 02:33 PM
That thread is fun to read, my post stated that

"I love Majeski and also have the semi man crush that Ramp was talking of, on Bray."

I was so young.

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 02:34 PM
I certainly didn't expect a monster return, but Austin Kearns has proven to be an above average starting right fielder at a reasonable contract. That has value. Certainly more than Bray and a bunch of chaff. Remember, the whole trade was really centred around Kearns and Majewski. The whole concept was flawed in the return.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about AK's value. I do not find him to be above average. He is not bad (about average IMO), but I do not see him not getting 3 days off during the All-Star Break anytime soon (unless picked as the default pick for a bad Nats team). Last year AK played in 161 games. I give him credit for that. In his time with the REDS he was bitten with lots of injuries. That was a major concern at that time. I do not like to speculate, but there seemed to be a bit of an attitude thing going on behind closed doors before THE TRADE. Still... the REDS needed pitching at the time of the trade (and before millions were shelled out to those two). I will believe the "could have gotten more talk" if there is evidence of something better that could have been had.

I admit to starting up THE TRADE debate again. But I still stand firmly on the side of "it was okay to unload AK and FeLO". Would have been nice to get something better, but other goods would have been a "chance" just like Bray and Majewski. I put my money on the side of there was nothing in the for-sure category that was offered for AK and FeLo.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2008, 02:49 PM
I admit to starting up THE TRADE debate again. But I still stand firmly on the side of "it was okay to unload AK and FeLO". Would have been nice to get something better, but other goods would have been a "chance" just like Bray and Majewski. I put my money on the side of there was nothing in the for-sure category that was offered for AK and FeLo.

If that's the best you can do, and you admit that the return was nothing special, then why bother making the deal? We were in a playoff run and only finished a few games back. The trade certainly hindered are chances, and it didn't set us up any better for the future.

Even if you don't think Lopez/Kearns are cornerstones, you could probably get a similar unappealing package in the offseason, and worst case scenario you non-tender them. Is Bray really worth losing a legit shot at the playoffs?

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 03:15 PM
I am not sure, AK, if I understand your meaning of how the trade hindered playoff chances in 2006. You can mean:

(a) Majic/Bray hurt those chances.
(b) AK/FeLo would have been the difference for the REDS in 2006.
(c) supposed others that might have been had for AK/FeLO would have made the difference.

I want to be sure that I am taking your comment in the right context. But some answers to the above three that I'd like to counter with are:

(a) Perhaps didn't help a pathetic BP in 2006, but didn't make it any worse. A bullpen that had a 5.17 ERA and 1.50 WHIP the 1st half of 2006.
(b) the REDS scored 4 runs or less in half of the games (32 of 64) from May 1 to the trade. AK and FeLo weren't difference makers at the plate in 2006 while in REDS uniforms. Defense... AK I will not argue with being a problem (he was good). FeLo, forget it. He was replaceable defensively by almost any SS in MLB at that time.
(c) see my previous comments. Especially in regard to 2006. Who could they have gotten? I need evidence that shows it to be true.

M2
03-22-2008, 04:17 PM
Lopez was a 26-year-old SS coming off an All-Star season. Austin Kearns was an affordable RF with an .843 OPS. To get two relievers (one of whom was garbage), a washed up Royce Clayton, a UT who got cut after the season and a flyer on a C pitching prospect was a ridiculously bad haul, a tragedy for which this franchise is still paying.

I could give a flying crap what Felipe Lopez is doing today. I was all for trading him (hell, I was all for not trading for him in the first place), but Krivsky needed to get a useful return. Struggling teams can't trade starting players for nothing and that's exactly what the Reds have gotten from that deal to date. No amount post-trade spin can change that. It was a moronic move, the complete opposite of the Pena-Arroyo deal for which Krivsky deserves bouquets. Everyday players for middle relievers -- wretch.

Had Krivsky scored something for Kearns and Lopez, the Reds would be a front-runner for a playoff spot in 2008. No amount of schadenfreude over Lopez and Kearns' performance is going to fill the void for what Krivsky failed to acquire for them.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2008, 04:17 PM
But look at who replaced FeLo and Kearns. Royce Clayton put up an anemic .619 OPS over 150 at-bats while playing sub par D. Say what you will about Lopez, but he always put up respectable numbers during his final 2 years in Cincy.

A .150ish OPS drop over that span is massive. Right there could have been the difference. Guys like Freel and Denorfia amongst others tried to replace Kearns and provided little production. Again, the los in production there could have been the difference. The margin was so small, that both of those factors could have easily been enough to tip the scales.

Meanwhile Gary Majewski posted an ERA over 8 pitching in high leverage situations and Bray was okay. Majewski certainly did hurt us, even by comparison to the rest of the ugly lot he replaced, pitching sub replacement value pitching.

There are 3 main factors there... each one you could argue would be big enough to mean the required wins that left the Reds out of a spot. Put them together, and you have a trade that hurt on all fronts.

Look I agree that the end result has not killed the Reds. Kearns didn't have a spot here and Lopez was a flawed player. But the trade was designed to help the bullpen now and then (it hasn't), it was designed to get the team to the playoffs (it didn't). As of now, I like having Bray in the fold, but the trade value of Kearns and Lopez should have netted more or better young players, and if really couldn't, that type of deal should not have gone down when we had a realistic shot at the playoffs.

*BaseClogger*
03-22-2008, 05:15 PM
Meanwhile Gary Majewski posted an ERA over 8 pitching in high leverage situations and Bray was okay. Majewski certainly did hurt us, even by comparison to the rest of the ugly lot he replaced, pitching sub replacement value pitching.

You gotta admit that replacement level for the Reds and relief pitchers is much lower than the rest of the league ;)

traderumor
03-22-2008, 05:32 PM
It seems to me that the market was pretty efficient in evaluating the market value of Kearns and Lopez and the Reds took a couple of relievers. I still haven't seen this unwritten reliever rule that says you don't trade for them. I guess evaluating the trade on results goes both ways in the end.

Puffy
03-22-2008, 05:36 PM
Lopez was a 26-year-old SS coming off an All-Star season. Austin Kearns was an affordable RF with an .843 OPS. To get two relievers (one of whom was garbage), a washed up Royce Clayton, a UT who got cut after the season and a flyer on a C pitching prospect was a ridiculously bad haul, a tragedy for which this franchise is still paying.

I could give a flying crap what Felipe Lopez is doing today. I was all for trading him (hell, I was all for not trading for him in the first place), but Krivsky needed to get a useful return. Struggling teams can't trade starting players for nothing and that's exactly what the Reds have gotten from that deal to date. No amount post-trade spin can change that. It was a moronic move, the complete opposite of the Pena-Arroyo deal for which Krivsky deserves bouquets. Everyday players for middle relievers -- wretch.

Had Krivsky scored something for Kearns and Lopez, the Reds would be a front-runner for a playoff spot in 2008. No amount of schadenfreude over Lopez and Kearns' performance is going to fill the void for what Krivsky failed to acquire for them.

:clap:

Caveat Emperor
03-22-2008, 06:39 PM
Had Krivsky scored something for Kearns and Lopez, the Reds would be a front-runner for a playoff spot in 2008. No amount of schadenfreude over Lopez and Kearns' performance is going to fill the void for what Krivsky failed to acquire for them.

Yup.

If you get even replacement-level relievers for Lopez and Kearns, it takes jobs away from guys like Mike Stanton.

BUT -- the Reds didn't get that, and so now they continue to search for answers in the bullpen.

OnBaseMachine
03-22-2008, 06:44 PM
The Nationals named Odalis Perez their Opening Day starter today. Wow. How bad is the Nationals starting rotation?

Caveat Emperor
03-22-2008, 07:01 PM
The Nationals named Odalis Perez their Opening Day starter today. Wow. How bad is the Nationals starting rotation?

About as bad as the Reds was when they named Corey Lidle opening day starter.

jojo
03-22-2008, 07:03 PM
Everyone needs a dramatically overpaid bench player with a bad attitude. That's not the point.

Trading an above league average starting position player for two run of the mill relievers is just philosophically unsound.

Kearns is why "the trade" was a poor one back in the day and still is a poor one using results-based analysis.

The trade was as much about dumping Felo as it was about anything else.

savafan
03-22-2008, 07:09 PM
What's that phrase my grandma always used to say?

"No use crying over spilled milk."

Yeah, I think that was it. ;)

M2
03-22-2008, 07:18 PM
"No use crying over spilled milk."

Depends on how much you like milk. I love it.

TRF
03-22-2008, 07:23 PM
Lopez was a 26-year-old SS coming off an All-Star season. Austin Kearns was an affordable RF with an .843 OPS. To get two relievers (one of whom was garbage), a washed up Royce Clayton, a UT who got cut after the season and a flyer on a C pitching prospect was a ridiculously bad haul, a tragedy for which this franchise is still paying.

I could give a flying crap what Felipe Lopez is doing today. I was all for trading him (hell, I was all for not trading for him in the first place), but Krivsky needed to get a useful return. Struggling teams can't trade starting players for nothing and that's exactly what the Reds have gotten from that deal to date. No amount post-trade spin can change that. It was a moronic move, the complete opposite of the Pena-Arroyo deal for which Krivsky deserves bouquets. Everyday players for middle relievers -- wretch.

Had Krivsky scored something for Kearns and Lopez, the Reds would be a front-runner for a playoff spot in 2008. No amount of schadenfreude over Lopez and Kearns' performance is going to fill the void for what Krivsky failed to acquire for them.


:clap:

seconded.

Ltlabner
03-22-2008, 07:35 PM
We were in a playoff run and only finished a few games back. Is Bray really worth losing a legit shot at the playoffs?

Where is this idea that we were in a playoff run comming from?

I remember being castigated for suggesting we were in the hunt at the time. Bascially I was told that we wern't in the hunt, it only looked that way because the rest of the division sucked.

Now history is being re-written to imply that we were really out there tearing things up?

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 07:43 PM
So... who could-of/would-of/should-of been had for AK and FeLo? I hear the complaints about "the return", but I have not heard any evidence telling me that there were better (PITCHING!) offers to be had. I don't want "well I think they could have"... I want to hear what Krivsky declined. I can easily claim that the REDS could be frontrunners for the 2008 playoffs if they had traded Adam Dunn for Johan Santana last year. I don't know that it could have been done, but do any of those making playoff claims (or supporting those claims) that REAL quality was there to be had for two small-market starters have solid proof of anything? I don't think so. I claim AK and FeLo weren't valued by other GMs, others seem to think they were. Both are claims... not fact. Do not let unsubstantiated claims be confused with fact.

There is no guarantee in a trade. Just like the Nats are not getting the benefits they hoped to receive from that trade. Just like other pitchers that might have been had for AK and FeLo had no guarantee of success. Hindsight is 20-20 in regard to Bray and Majewski... but in no way can it be claimed that the REDS are held out of the playoffs because they could-have/would-have/should-have gotten a stud or two for AK and FeLo. I refuse to buy that CLAIM.

Tom Servo
03-22-2008, 08:15 PM
The trade didn't kill the playoff run, the complete collapse by the team in late August after tying the Cardinals for the lead on August 24th killed the playoff run.

Patrick Bateman
03-22-2008, 08:40 PM
So... who could-of/would-of/should-of been had for AK and FeLo? I hear the complaints about "the return", but I have not heard any evidence telling me that there were better (PITCHING!) offers to be had. I don't want "well I think they could have"... I want to hear what Krivsky declined. I can easily claim that the REDS could be frontrunners for the 2008 playoffs if they had traded Adam Dunn for Johan Santana last year. I don't know that it could have been done, but do any of those making playoff claims (or supporting those claims) that REAL quality was there to be had for two small-market starters have solid proof of anything? I don't think so. I claim AK and FeLo weren't valued by other GMs, others seem to think they were. Both are claims... not fact. Do not let unsubstantiated claims be confused with fact.

There is no guarantee in a trade. Just like the Nats are not getting the benefits they hoped to receive from that trade. Just like other pitchers that might have been had for AK and FeLo had no guarantee of success. Hindsight is 20-20 in regard to Bray and Majewski... but in no way can it be claimed that the REDS are held out of the playoffs because they could-have/would-have/should-have gotten a stud or two for AK and FeLo. I refuse to buy that CLAIM.

As I said, if you ould not have gotten more (which I still have trouble believing) the trade was still a bad idea. If the market dictates a crap return, then selling really low is not a good option. If Gary Majewski is the best reliever available, then you don't make the trade. You don't make a trade just to do something.

That particular trade made the Reds a worse team then, and did very little for the future. You don't have to take the best offer on the table. There was no gun to Krivsky's head.

Hindsight isn't required for Majewski. Many people understood that Majewski was going to be at best a middle reliever. He was replaceable, and when those types bottom out they hit the ground hard. I still like Bray, but he is what he is, a promising reliever with set-up man upside. Is that really worth giving up an above average regular, and additionally hurting the playoff chances?

This was a dud trade from the start, and history still hasn't bene kind. It sucked in the short run, and has been at best a wash in the long run. And I don't buy for a second that Kearns could only grab a middle reliever in value. That makes no sense. He's a quality player with a decent salary situation. That has value... way more than middle relief types.

And my argument wasn't that the Reds should have gotten a stud to vault them in the playoffs. My stance is that by simply holding on to their players, they would have been a better team for that season (and that is indefensible IMO). Kearns>mixed bag in right and Lopez was>>>>Clayton.

RedsManRick
03-22-2008, 08:43 PM
RedsFan, I think the question/point is, if that truly was the best offer on the table, we should have stood pat for the time being. Unless you think the value of your holding is going to completely tank, you ride out the value trough. He took less value in return because he felt he had to shore up the bullpen. Unfortunately, the trade did nothing to increase our chances of winning that year. It clearly failed at it's primary purpose (as stated by WK). You always have the choice to not make the trade at all. If that was the best offer, the best choice was to continue to try outscoring our opponents.

M2
03-22-2008, 09:02 PM
I want to hear what Krivsky declined.

He didn't give himself the chance to decline anything. He pulled a quick trigger on a stupid deal. It was a surprise move. Came out nowhere, counter offers weren't even sought.

We know what Wily Mo Pena fetched a few months earlier and in no sane ordering of the universe did Lopez and Kearns have less trade value. Even if they didn't ultimately fetch a better return they were worth more than middle relievers ... not closers, not elite setup men, middle relievers. The following winter, guys like Juan Pierre and Gary Matthews Jr. were making mints on the free agent market. The Cubs were lavishing money on Mark DeRosa. We'll never have any idea as to what could have been had for Kearns and Lopez other than what the Reds got because they never got shopped, but I don't see any basis for the contention that they could have fetched less during the 2006 calendar year. You could trade them another 100 times and be hard pressed to make a worse deal.

As for the playoff thing, that's Krivsky's own doing. He said that's what his team needed to get over the hump. Oddly, the bullpen settled thanks to moves outside The Trade and it wasn't what the team needed to get over the hump.

It was a case of a GM thinking that anything he touched would turn to gold

BCubb2003
03-22-2008, 09:17 PM
If I remember correctly from that time, the Reds were desperate for any warm bodies that could take the ball. As in, how soon can you get to the stadium? We're dying here.

M2
03-22-2008, 09:27 PM
If I remember correctly from that time, the Reds were desperate for any warm bodies that could take the ball. As in, how soon can you get to the stadium? We're dying here.

Moral of the story, don't be so desperate.

RedFanAlways1966
03-22-2008, 10:14 PM
Okay. I'll give (for now). :) Been fun discussing this 20 months later.

Perhaps waiting until closer to the trade deadline might have brought something better from a team desperate for a bat/glove like AK. Maybe not Alexander for Smoltz, but definitely better than Majic. The trade happened on the 1st day back from the Break and there were two more weeks until deadline time. I guess Krivsky must have thought the return was worth it and he can be held accountable for that. Patience is a virtue. But I almost give Krivsky a break b/c that 1st half bullpen was horrendous.

I must admit that I am glad to be rid of AK and FeLo. One of the few times in my life that I wasn't sad to see REDS players leave the team.

reds44
03-22-2008, 10:16 PM
The Kansas City Star says there's a rumor that the Royals have agreed to pay half of Angel Berroa’s $4.75 million salary in order to send him to the Nationals for reliever Zach Zenicola.

We can't imagine the Nationals would entertain the idea of paying more than $1 million of Berroa's salary. Even that would be excessive. The Royals aren't expecting anything from him and should be thrilled to get back any sort of prospect even if it means taking on the whole amount. Zenicola looked like a better bet a year ago, but he's still a decent relief prospect.

Source: Kansas City Star
Looks like Felipe's days in Washington are done. I know many will disagree with me on this, but with the way our bench looks right now I would love to have Lopez back as a backup at 2nd, 3rd, and SS.

Big Klu
03-22-2008, 10:50 PM
Lopez was>>>>Clayton.

Except that a few weeks after the trade, Rich Aurilia took over at SS, at least against RHP. And as much as he is/was hated by many here at RedsZone, Aurilia>>>>Lopez. That left Clayton to play SS against LHP, as Richie moved to 1B against lefties. If you remember, Lopez was horrid vs. southpaws. Against LHP, I would say Lopez = Clayton. (Actually, Lopez may be slightly better, but the difference was minuscule.)

RFS62
03-22-2008, 10:55 PM
They believed that they could contend with the pitching they thought they were getting in "the trade".

I think they decided that Austin and FeLo were the guys they were going to move and they pulled the trigger on a deal with a questionable return. Certainly, as M2 says, less than they could have had if they waited.

I think they judged that the opportunity cost of going for it that year was worth the lesser return. It turned out to be fools gold, even had the new guys pitched well.

KronoRed
03-22-2008, 11:42 PM
seconded.

Thirded, or forthed...err..M2 is right
:D

IslandRed
03-22-2008, 11:42 PM
Looks like Felipe's days in Washington are done. I know many will disagree with me on this, but with the way our bench looks right now I would love to have Lopez back as a backup at 2nd, 3rd, and SS.

Only if we're presuming Gonzalez is injured or traded, and Keppinger is the regular shortstop. If Gonzalez is starting at shortstop and the choice of utility infielder is between Keppinger and Lopez, honestly, I'd rather have Keppinger right now.

cincrazy
03-23-2008, 12:15 AM
It's time to face the facts: "The Trade" was a pretty bad trade on both fronts. FeLo and Wagner have no value to the Nats, and while Kearns is a solid RF, that's all he is, is league average. If Bray can become a reliable lefty out of the pen and Thompson a solid starter or contributor, I think we clearly win the one trade that WK is most heavily slammed for.

edabbs44
03-23-2008, 12:48 AM
It's time to face the facts: "The Trade" was a pretty bad trade on both fronts. FeLo and Wagner have no value to the Nats, and while Kearns is a solid RF, that's all he is, is league average. If Bray can become a reliable lefty out of the pen and Thompson a solid starter or contributor, I think we clearly win the one trade that WK is most heavily slammed for.

The only problem is that the Reds side is the "if" in the equation. If Bray and if Thompson.

cincrazy
03-23-2008, 01:12 AM
The only problem is that the Reds side is the "if" in the equation. If Bray and if Thompson.

I've never argued that it was a good trade. But I don't think it was a death blow to the franchise as it's sometimes portrayed to be. It was a bad trade, but while it didn't make us any better, it surely didn't really make us any worse.

The objective of any trade is to get better, and clearly that didn't happen. They unquestionably could have received more for the two of them due to their inflated value from playing in GABP, and it's a shame they rushed and pulled the trigger in trying to save a hopeless season.

SteelSD
03-23-2008, 01:19 AM
It's time to face the facts: "The Trade" was a pretty bad trade on both fronts. FeLo and Wagner have no value to the Nats, and while Kearns is a solid RF, that's all he is, is league average. If Bray can become a reliable lefty out of the pen and Thompson a solid starter or contributor, I think we clearly win the one trade that WK is most heavily slammed for.

The trade was lost the moment it was made. Immediately, there was a projected Run value loss incurred by the Reds and that was only exacerbated by the fact that the players acquired produced results even worse than expected. The trade was intended to help the Reds contend and it ended up robbing the Reds of likely three Wins worth of offense and as many as four. The MLB players acquired produced the kind of bad, awful, volatile performances folks expected.

Kearns left Cincinnati in 2006 with an adjusted OPS+ of 110 and then produced a an adjusted OPS+ of 114 while playing a majority of his games in the worst hitters park in baseball. Yeah, Kearns' offense actually improved after the trade. His 2007 OPS+ of 103 is uninspiring, but his career adjusted OPS+ of 111 is definitely above-average and considering that he's also an above-average defender, he's represented very solid Run value to his team over the past 1.5 seasons and has certainly been worth what he's been paid.

Lopez is the guy who's tanked his offensive Run value over the past two years. But as a 2005 All-Star and Silver Slugger, there's simply no way anyone is going to convince me that he had no market value at mid-season 2006. Lopez, alone, should have been able to glean a couple of middle relievers for the second half. Instead, Krivsky completely botched the job. Don't kid yourself- so far, the return on "The Trade" has been a Run value loss for the Reds since it happened. And that was a trade where the Reds should have been selling high. It projected to be disaster when it was made and it has been a disaster. Not at all surprising.


It was a bad trade, but while it didn't make us any better, it surely didn't really make us any worse.

Sure it did. In Reds' uniforms, Bray and Majewski have produced a 6.53 ERA. Royce Clayton produced a .290 OBP and a .329 SLG in a Reds' uniform while also being awful defensively. That trade wasn't a wash. It was a complete and total loss even if we're only using hindsight at this point.

TRF
03-23-2008, 01:36 AM
The trade was lost the moment it was made. Immediately, there was a projected Run value loss incurred by the Reds and that was only exacerbated by the fact that the players acquired produced results even worse than expected. The trade was intended to help the Reds contend and it ended up robbing the Reds of likely three Wins worth of offense and as many as four. The MLB players acquired produced the kind of bad, awful, volatile performances folks expected.

Kearns left Cincinnati in 2006 with an adjusted OPS+ of 110 and then produced a an adjusted OPS+ of 114 while playing a majority of his games in the worst hitters park in baseball. Yeah, Kearns' offense actually improved after the trade. His 2007 OPS+ of 103 is unispiring, but his career adjusted OPS+ of 111 is definitely above-average and considering that he's also an above-average defender, he's represented very solid Run value to his team over the past 1.5 seasons and has certainly been worth what he's been paid.

Lopez is the guy who's tanked his offensive Run value over the past two years. But as a 2005 All-Star and Silver Slugger, there's simply no way anyone is going to convince me that he had no market value at mid-season 2006. Lopez, alone, should have been able to glean a couple of middle relievers for the second half. Instead, Krivsky completely botched the job. Don't kid yourself- so far, the return on "The Trade" has been a Run value loss for the Reds since it happened. And that was a trade where the Reds should have been selling high. It projected to be disaster when it was made and it has been a disaster. Not at all surprising.

What Steel and M2 are saying is what most of us that bashed the trade at the time and since have said all along. It wasn't who was traded, it was the return. Stell has it exactly right, the Reds were in a position to sell high, but he just didn't do it. And it goes to weird pattern he has. He seems to NEED to make a deal, any deal at times. Some good, some bad, but he trades almost like a fantasy GM at times. oooh, I need Holds!

At the time Kearns was worth at least what WMP returned if not more. He certainly was worth what Krivsky just got for Hamilton.

Plain and simple, Krivsky made a bad, bad trade. In fact, he's made a number of bad moves. And a number of good ones. I can get over the trade, but I know I'll go on a serious rant IF Guervara or Medlock make noise this year. Salmon too, depending on the return. But if it's just cash, I'll wretch.

M2
03-23-2008, 01:37 AM
It's time to face the facts: "The Trade" was a pretty bad trade on both fronts. FeLo and Wagner have no value to the Nats, and while Kearns is a solid RF, that's all he is, is league average. If Bray can become a reliable lefty out of the pen and Thompson a solid starter or contributor, I think we clearly win the one trade that WK is most heavily slammed for.

No.

From the Reds perspective, the value of Kearns and Lopez is fixed as of the date 7/13/06. The Reds need more than a LH "contributor" for two young starting players. Thompson's pure speculation and Austin Kearns is a solid starting RF and has been for 1.5 seasons in DC. He's piling up value on the Nats' end and he's likely to continue (especially now that he no longer has to play his home games at RFK: 2007 home OPS - .695, road OPS - .832). FeLo even gave DC sturdy leadoff work in 2006.

Viewed through Win Shares, the Nats have gotten 47 from Kearns and Lopez (Kearns tied for the team lead with Ryan Zimmerman last season at 21, which would have tied Dunn for the Reds team lead too). Bray, Majewski, Clayton and Harris have delivered 2 for the Reds (Majewski with a mind-boggling -2 in a system designed to start at 0 and move up). That's incredibly lopsided.

There are any number of avenues for a team to pick up bullpen contributors, none of which should cost a player who can start every day. Bray needs to be a closer or top tier setup man in order justify dealing ONE of Kearns or Lopez in 2006. A bullpen contributor is worth about 7 WS in a given season (if it's a good one). FeLo was worth three times that in 2005, twice that in 2006 and 1.5 times that last season (bad trend I know, but it puts in perspective how much you have to get from a reliever to justify the deal).

And let me wrap back to something RFA1966 said about not missing Kearns and FeLo. I don't miss them either, but they represent the continuation of a something-for-nothing trend which has clobbered the franchise during this decade.

I was all for trading Kearns, Lopez, Sean Casey, Aaron Boone, Scott Williamson and Todd Walker, but, to date, the Reds have gotten nothing for those guys, literally nothing. That's a starting IF, a RF and a closer and the Reds have nothing to show for those deals, not one player of consequence to date. Lesser players who also fetched nothing include Michael Tucker, Chris Reitsma, Cory Lidle and Todd Jones. Say what you will about those four, but they all went on to regular gigs in the majors while the kids who came in return for them amounted to nothing. Only Drew Henson being a complete butthead saved the Denny Neagle trade.

Why have the Reds been a losing club for seven straight years? Well, there's a lot of contributors to that kind of failure, but one of the major ones is major league players heading out the door and no one coming back. If a franchise doesn't have gobs of cash to spend and/or a superior minor league feeder system, it can't survive that kind of talent drain.

And you only need to look as far as Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo to see how much it means to score some real talent in trade. Had the Reds managed to get some substance for half the guys I just listed, this franchise would be sitting pretty.

It's impossible to measure the quantitative impact of what wasn't done, but from a qualitative standpoint we can all testify to it amounting to a long, painful run for the fanbase.

WMR
03-23-2008, 01:39 AM
He didn't give himself the chance to decline anything. He pulled a quick trigger on a stupid deal. It was a surprise move. Came out nowhere, counter offers weren't even sought.

We know what Wily Mo Pena fetched a few months earlier and in no sane ordering of the universe did Lopez and Kearns have less trade value. Even if they didn't ultimately fetch a better return they were worth more than middle relievers ... not closers, not elite setup men, middle relievers. The following winter, guys like Juan Pierre and Gary Matthews Jr. were making mints on the free agent market. The Cubs were lavishing money on Mark DeRosa. We'll never have any idea as to what could have been had for Kearns and Lopez other than what the Reds got because they never got shopped, but I don't see any basis for the contention that they could have fetched less during the 2006 calendar year. You could trade them another 100 times and be hard pressed to make a worse deal.

As for the playoff thing, that's Krivsky's own doing. He said that's what his team needed to get over the hump. Oddly, the bullpen settled thanks to moves outside The Trade and it wasn't what the team needed to get over the hump.

It was a case of a GM thinking that anything he touched would turn to gold

http://www.planetdreamcast.com/games/database/images/nbashowtime.jpg

"OH MY, HE'S ON FIRE!!"

BCubb2003
03-23-2008, 02:11 AM
Of course, the GM out there who would have given more is completely hypothetical. No one did, and now no one will. There's a small possibility that the other GMs saw in these guys what they quickly became.

*BaseClogger*
03-23-2008, 02:50 AM
Of course, the GM out there who would have given more is completely hypothetical. No one did, and now no one will. There's a small possibility that the other GMs saw in these guys what they quickly became.

the same GM's that have given guys like Juan Castro and Royce Clayton careers spanning more than a decade... :rolleyes:

Topcat
03-23-2008, 07:40 AM
I guess THE TRADE complainers might finally admit that FeLo and Majewski can be considered THE WASH. Or should we mention the millions of dollars more the Nationals paid on their half of THE WASH?

On calling Majewski-FeLo THE WASH... there is always hope that Gary might get it together while still wearing a REDS uniform. If FeLo is set free for next-to-nothing, then the best the Nats got was notta. Other than saving millions in the future for notta production, lotta errors and lotta complaining.

Interesting... as time passes after a "big"(?) trade. Interesting.


Nah that is not the case. The dissenters feel they could have gotten far more is the company line they pipe. The millions saved on the chaffe they lost is all but forgotten.

mth123
03-23-2008, 09:10 AM
Nah that is not the case. The dissenters feel they could have gotten far more is the company line they pipe. The millions saved on the chaffe they lost is all but forgotten.

Except the Reds weren't locked into these guys long term and that money could have been saved by non-tendering. The team would have been better off non-tendering and going another route in the pen than they were by giving those innings to Majewski and Bray. I hope Bray works out, but even if he does, a Kearns for Bray deal is a win for the team that gets Kearns even at Kearns current long term commitment. Daryl Thompson needs to become a decent major league pitcher at the back of a rotation or be flipped for some one with value for this deal to even begin to look better than a total loss.

traderumor
03-23-2008, 09:31 AM
the same GM's that have given guys like Juan Castro and Royce Clayton careers spanning more than a decade... :rolleyes:That is a point I was making earlier. Just because the market is sometimes inefficient doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be inefficient. The funny thing is, having reported for and consulted many a small businessman, I hope everyone who acts as if GMs are the 30 dumbest men on the planet are not the typical small businessman, who is busy as anyone but can't seem to make any money and is consistently making head scratching moves. Of course, that wouldn't apply to anyone here, I'm sure.

Wheelhouse
03-23-2008, 11:47 AM
There has been talk of having gotten more in return for AK and FeLo, but it seems the guy many once thought was Mickey Mantle is more of an Alex Ochoa (Kearns), and maybe gms and scouts knew it. Lopez has just turned out to be a lousy player who is no help in the clubhouse.

princeton
03-23-2008, 11:47 AM
Of course, the GM out there who would have given more is completely hypothetical. No one did, and now no one will.


right on.

for a year, I would look at transactions, or even at teams rumored to be in interested in players similar to Kearns and/or Lopez, wondering what we could have had instead.

Carlos Lee, Gary Sheffield, and Mark Texeira were traded for good returns, but each is a MUCH better hitter than Austin Kearns. Carlos Lee trade was probably most relevant given its timing and the division, but I suspect that Texas wouldn't have given up Cordero to us for Kearns. Maybe a Dunn trade, instead. My conclusion is that if there's anything to be upset about, it's that Dunn is still around-- unless, of course, you're happy that Dunn is still around, as many are.

I didn't really see a Lopez-like player fetch a whole lot, either.

So, Krivsky may have read the market on the value of Kearns and Lopez remarkably well. And both were replaced remarkably quickly with better, cheaper players -- Kearns, with Hamilton, and Lopez, who's really a UT, with Keppinger. That's good GM-ship.

(and yes, I've heard the arguments that we'd have still added Hamilton if Kearns was still around. Perhaps. But I do know that addition of Hamilton was an aggressive move, and that GMs get a lot more aggressive when there's a hole to fill)

He received two pitchers that were immediately injured. A bit of shenanigans involved on one of them. He's not the first to suffer on either account. To his credit, he didn't shy away from trying to add still more pitchers. It's been aggravating that the bullpen remains ugly. However, everyone that is happy with Volquez, or with Todd Frazier (indirect product of trade for Scott Schoeneweiss) should be happy that Krivsky remained aggressive.

we're used to GMs that will only add the types of guys that they can count on to make the GM look good. I'll take a GM that continues to look for the types of guys that we need, even if they might also bust and make the GM look really bad.

finally, when WK took over, the best I'd hoped for was strong competitiveness in 2009. I didn't actually think that we'd get there, but it was my hope. The main argument against the Kearns deal was that we could instead have added different players, instead, who would have helped in 2009 but not at all in 2006-7. As mentioned above, I don't really see who that was. More importantly, at this point in time, depending on Cueto and Volquez and Bruce, it looks like we really are on a 2009 track. And guess what? I NEVER REALLY CARED HOW WE GOT TO THAT 2009TRACK! If we lost a trade or two, I honestly did not care. What I really really REALLY didn't want to hear around now was that we're shooting for 2012.

redsrule2500
03-23-2008, 11:58 AM
From the infamous thread, http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48529&highlight=Kearns, about THE TRADE. No poster names mentioned to protect their reputations...

Cool! :cool:

I found my post and I said it was a forward looking trade, if only Royce wasn't the considered starting shortstop. I still agree with myself :D

M2
03-23-2008, 11:23 PM
That is a point I was making earlier. Just because the market is sometimes inefficient doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be inefficient. The funny thing is, having reported for and consulted many a small businessman, I hope everyone who acts as if GMs are the 30 dumbest men on the planet are not the typical small businessman, who is busy as anyone but can't seem to make any money and is consistently making head scratching moves. Of course, that wouldn't apply to anyone here, I'm sure.

Technically the market was efficient when the Reds traded Jose Guillen too. It's just that Aaron Harang turned out to be a big score. And Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena? That didn't exactly scream "Winner!" to a lot of folks when it went down.

Efficiency strikes me as something that doesn't apply to the MLB trade market. To a degree it can't apply to the MLB trade market because no one knows the actual future value of what they're trading. Occasionally you see a straight up trade like Hamilton for Volquez, but more often it's an established player for kids trying to break through.

The team trying to get the established player always takes the "Well, he's not so great" stance. To a degree that's accurate because there are no flawless players. You know what's wrong with a regular player because it's out there for everyone to see. The market's also constrained by who has a need for that player, the money to pay him and can offer up something compelling in return for him.

That said, despite all that, teams want established players. They may want them for nothing, but they get queasy when they don't have enough of those established players around.

So when you're trading a guy from your starting eight or your rotation or a top bullpen guy, it's always the art of trying to get something fro someone dedicated to ripping you off.

Obviously you'll have your misses in that market, but the Reds made a habit of missing WAY too often. In the Kearns/Lopez case, it was a trade that almost by design couldn't help but miss. It had an incredibly narrow window for success, namely the Reds had a acute bullpen issue that, if fixed, could yield an instant winner. Now it's just a matter of hoping Bray and maybe Thompson can salvage the deal.

westofyou
03-24-2008, 11:19 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301985.html


Infielder Felipe Lopez and first baseman Dmitri Young likely will lose out in position battles to Ronnie Belliard and Nick Johnson, respectively. López said last week he would not be happy as a substitute; Young has largely declined to discuss his competition with Johnson, which has been good-natured.

The Nationals are trying to trade López, though scouts and executives from other teams appear more interested in Belliard, who is cheaper -- $3.5 million for the next two years as opposed to L¿pez's $4.9 million for 2008 -- and performing better. Belliard is hitting .383 this spring, López .231.

Jpup
03-24-2008, 12:16 PM
Belliard played ball all winter. I watched him played several games in the Dominican. He should be ahead of everyone. Dmitri should latch on with an AL club should he be available.

Jpup
03-24-2008, 12:18 PM
Patterson to Texas

The Texas Rangers have agreed on a minor league contract with former first-round pick John Patterson. Patterson, who was an all-state pitcher at West Orange-Stark High School, is flying to Arizona today to take a physical. He was released by the Washington Nationals last week. "It's a comfortable fit and I'm looking to getting out there and getting going," said Patterson, who was 0-2 with a 7.00 ERA in three spring starts for Washington. "I feel good. I've been working real hard, throwing a lot. I haven't had any problems." -- Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Team Clark
03-24-2008, 12:24 PM
I like Meat Hook. Glad a lot of his problems are behind him. As long as he can find a way to manage his diabetes he should be able to stay relatively healthy and serve as a good DH.