PDA

View Full Version : kearns and pena are batting .340



redsupport
04-26-2008, 11:49 PM
together

Kingspoint
04-27-2008, 12:02 AM
and we wouldn't have Volquez without trading Kearns because Hamilton wouldn't have gotten the at-bats.

The Kearns/Lopez trade was an excellent trade as it's netted Thompson, Bray, and Volquez. Anyone who thought it was a bad trade at the time just goes to show that they were only thinking of the present and didn't have an eye for the "complete results" of the trade. In any trade you always want to get the best player, and the two best players were Bray and Thompson. It was known then that they were the best with the only question being Thompson's ability to bounce back from injury. It was also a legitimate idea at the time that opening a spot in the outfield for others was a great idea because it's easier to find outfielders than any other position. Krivsky also knew about Hamilton for years and had his eyes on him all along.

LouisvilleCARDS
04-27-2008, 12:40 AM
I won't argue about the trade, I think we're the clear winner of this right now. The only argument is the Reds could have gotten more out of the situation to where the players were at, at the time. It can go back to the Griffey trade in 2000. At the time the Reds obviously got the better deal, but Griffey has always been hurt and the Reds have had 7 straight losing seasons while paying the guy a ton of money handicapping the salary cap. Meanwhile the Mariners made the playoffs a couple times in that time frame and Mike Cameron has had a pretty good (and cheaper) career.

At the time, that trade was not very good. The Reds were trying to get in the playoffs and got rid of two starters and in turn got a couple of prospects that weren't going to play at all, a washed up Royce Clayton, and a couple of unproven relievers - and then the year took a tailspin.

HalMorrisRules
04-27-2008, 01:39 AM
redsupport, you now have the distinction of being only the second person I have placed on ignore. This board is just littered with your posts complaining about what former Reds are doing compared to what current Reds are doing or are not doing. It has really grown tiresome.

757690
04-27-2008, 01:51 AM
Read the post.

Redsupport is not complaining about the trade. He is making fun of those guys. They are hitting .340 together, meaning if you add their batting avg. together, it will equal .340.
He is pointing out that they suck.

redsupport
04-27-2008, 02:57 AM
hal morris rules has a difficult time interpreting the obvious

mlbfan30
04-27-2008, 03:47 AM
The trade has ended up in the Reds favor, and no1 can really dispute that....

However there will always be people who say the Reds should have gotten more at the time. Maybe more at the time is actually less now? No one knows.

But the goal of that trade was to make that bullpen better for a playoff stretch, and that didn't happen, so in that aspect it was a failure.

It still ended up being a good trade, but it took 2 years to realize it with Thompson starting to produce at the higher levels.

EddieMilner
04-27-2008, 03:57 AM
Read the post.

Redsupport is not complaining about the trade. He is making fun of those guys. They are hitting .340 together, meaning if you add their batting avg. together, it will equal .340.
He is pointing out that they suck.

While I agree in this instance that redsupport was not complaining, I do get annoyed with his posts. The posts where redsupport makes a statement in the title and then adds one word to the the text box is not adding much to the board. Please add something more than "nice" "together" or something that is in all lowercases with no punctuation. Its difficult to read and making a clear statement will go a lot further to adding to the community.

TheOnlyRedsFan
04-27-2008, 08:15 AM
looking back, the trade is a great deal
at the time, who was to know that we would get such a deal when it came time to look back on it and reflect

redsfanmia
04-27-2008, 08:28 AM
looking back, the trade is a great deal
at the time, who was to know that we would get such a deal when it came time to look back on it and reflect

Plus they dumped alot of salary.

ChatterRed
04-27-2008, 10:07 AM
It was a great trade. Great vision by Krivsky realizing those two were chumps and unloading their salary.

bengalsown
04-27-2008, 02:06 PM
Pretty misleading thread title.

CWRed
04-27-2008, 03:54 PM
:bash:

This whole thread makes me giggle. 2+2=4

Newman4
04-27-2008, 03:57 PM
While I agree in this instance that redsupport was not complaining, I do get annoyed with his posts. The posts where redsupport makes a statement in the title and then adds one word to the the text box is not adding much to the board. Please add something more than "nice" "together" or something that is in all lowercases with no punctuation. Its difficult to read and making a clear statement will go a lot further to adding to the community.

I found it humorous myself. Good lord, you guys need to lighten up with the whining and complaining. Sounds like ORG with all the "adding to the community" talk. :thumbdown

DannyB
04-27-2008, 04:07 PM
I won't argue about the trade, I think we're the clear winner of this right now. The only argument is the Reds could have gotten more out of the situation to where the players were at, at the time. It can go back to the Griffey trade in 2000. At the time the Reds obviously got the better deal, but Griffey has always been hurt and the Reds have had 7 straight losing seasons while paying the guy a ton of money handicapping the salary cap. Meanwhile the Mariners made the playoffs a couple times in that time frame and Mike Cameron has had a pretty good (and cheaper) career.

At the time, that trade was not very good. The Reds were trying to get in the playoffs and got rid of two starters and in turn got a couple of prospects that weren't going to play at all, a washed up Royce Clayton, and a couple of unproven relievers - and then the year took a tailspin.

Pena and Kearns weren't involved in the same trade.

DTCromer
04-27-2008, 04:09 PM
And Pena just misjudged a flyball right to him costing his team a double thus far.

Krawhitham
04-27-2008, 04:36 PM
and we wouldn't have Volquez without trading Kearns because Hamilton wouldn't have gotten the at-bats.

LOL, whatever

They found 307 ABs for Hopper last year, maybe Hopper would have got 10 ABs but Hamilton would still have got his near 300

Krawhitham
04-27-2008, 04:37 PM
And Pena just misjudged a flyball right to him costing his team a double thus far.

Sounds like Dunn