PDA

View Full Version : Bill Bray and Wilson Valdez non-tendered



WildcatFan
11-06-2012, 11:02 AM
According to Lance McAlister:

https://twitter.com/LanceMcAlister/status/265845826398601218


#Reds will non-tender Bill Bray. He was eligible for arbitration. He now becomes a free agent. I wish Bill the best and good health.

George Anderson
11-06-2012, 11:04 AM
So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

RedsManRick
11-06-2012, 11:09 AM
I wonder if there's any chance he comes back with a minor league deal or if he's pretty much guaranteed a major league contract somewhere.

WildcatFan
11-06-2012, 11:18 AM
I wonder if there's any chance he comes back with a minor league deal or if he's pretty much guaranteed a major league contract somewhere.

He'll get a big league job somewhere. Lefty with recent success.

puca
11-06-2012, 11:25 AM
So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

No one. Both teams lost.

westofyou
11-06-2012, 11:37 AM
So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

Reds lost by not getting a good return on players their fans overrated

Washington lost by not getting excess value from players the Reds fans overrated

The real loser were Reds fans, because it was just more suck, on top of already existing suck.

Superdude
11-06-2012, 11:44 AM
I'll always remember him spiking the pitchout to the backstop, the runner on third coming home, Bray not noticing and sauntering slowly towards the plate, realizing what was happening just before the throw from Hanigan clocked him in the face... embarrassing moment that one.

Benihana
11-06-2012, 11:51 AM
No one. Both teams lost.

:thumbup:

RedEye
11-06-2012, 12:06 PM
So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

In the end, nobody won it. But the Reds still could have and should have gotten more at the time.

RedFanAlways1966
11-06-2012, 12:11 PM
So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

The REDS and it is not even close. Just for the fact that they unloaded two players that made way more money than they deserved. One of these players was so bad that they released him (also the worst fielding SS in 2007). I do not care what the REDS got back... they unloaded two players who were not that good and frankly did not deserve to be in the starting lineup for most MLB teams despite getting starting-8 type of money.

OPS+
* Kearns: 113 w/ REDS ; 92 w/ NATS
* Lopez: 97 w/ REDS ; 76 w/ NATS

MONEY!
* Kearns in Wash.: 2007 = $3.5 mill, 2008 = $5.0 mill, 2009 = $8.0 mill
* Lopez in Wash.: 2007 = $3.9 mill, 2008 = $4.9 mill (released 7-31-2008!)

REDREAD
11-06-2012, 03:32 PM
So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

:lol:

In terms of pure production, the Nats won easily.

I guess some people will claim the Reds won because they save money, but the Reds could've accomplished the same thing by nontendering Kearns and Lopez.
In the end, the Reds got 174 IP out of Bray.. about 80 IP of those (my estimate) were good. The remaining were mediocre or bad. Only accumulated 1.8 WAR over his 6 year stay here.

I remember when people were clinging to Daryl Thompson being the savior of the trade. I guess there will be a new rationalization now to justify the Reds winning this.

The biggest impact was that the 2007 team which was in pseudo-contention collapsed after the "Trade"
Clayton, Maj, and Bray (along with Freel and maybe Deno in the OF after the trade) contributed a lot to the collapse.

Seems like an obvious loss for the Reds to me.

camisadelgolf
11-06-2012, 03:32 PM
In my eyes, the Reds "won" the trade by not wasting money on Kearns, Lopez, and Wagner. In the meantime, they got some value out of Bray, particularly a couple a years ago when they won the division.

Vottomatic
11-06-2012, 03:34 PM
In my eyes, Jim Bowden lost. :thumbup:

traderumor
11-06-2012, 04:14 PM
:lol:

In terms of pure production, the Nats won easily.

I guess some people will claim the Reds won because they save money, but the Reds could've accomplished the same thing by nontendering Kearns and Lopez.
In the end, the Reds got 174 IP out of Bray.. about 80 IP of those (my estimate) were good. The remaining were mediocre or bad. Only accumulated 1.8 WAR over his 6 year stay here.

I remember when people were clinging to Daryl Thompson being the savior of the trade. I guess there will be a new rationalization now to justify the Reds winning this.

The biggest impact was that the 2007 team which was in pseudo-contention collapsed after the "Trade"
Clayton, Maj, and Bray (along with Freel and maybe Deno in the OF after the trade) contributed a lot to the collapse.

Seems like an obvious loss for the Reds to me.

Put me in the "I don't care" since the deal is too far removed to have any current impact and everyone involved career's are either dead or on life support. Also, the folks making the deal no longer have any decision making capacity with the Reds. The amount of analysis performed on this trade just goes to show how slim the pickings were in "exciting" transactions of that time period.

UKFlounder
11-06-2012, 04:40 PM
Or of this offseason so far (thought not meant as a complaint - just a statement that not much has happened for the Reds yet)


Put me in the "I don't care" since the deal is too far removed to have any current impact and everyone involved career's are either dead or on life support. Also, the folks making the deal no longer have any decision making capacity with the Reds. The amount of analysis performed on this trade just goes to show how slim the pickings were in "exciting" transactions of that time period.

PuffyPig
11-06-2012, 05:22 PM
:lol:

In terms of pure production, the Nats won easily.




But when you look at how much that production cost them, it's far from clear.

Blitz Dorsey
11-06-2012, 06:33 PM
Good. Always hurt. Not reliable when he's not hurt (although he did piece together a good 2011 season).

Blitz Dorsey
11-06-2012, 06:34 PM
So who won "the trade".

The can of worms is opened.

Definitely the Rangers. They got 5 really good years out of Hamilton, went to the WS twice.

Oh, you're talking about "the trade involving a bunch of scrubs." I gotcha.

15fan
11-06-2012, 06:45 PM
Nevermind

westofyou
11-06-2012, 06:50 PM
Nevermind

Bleach is better

camisadelgolf
11-06-2012, 07:45 PM
Bleach is better
:thumbup:
So is In Utero.

REDREAD
11-06-2012, 08:07 PM
But when you look at how much that production cost them, it's far from clear.

It all depends on how you chose to look at it.
Extreme example.. the Reds trade for David Wright today for Logan O.
He wins the MVP in 2013.
Reds sign him longterm to a 10 year 300 million dollar contract.
He becomes ineffective the rest of his career.

Seems like a good trade, but the extension backfired.


The Reds gave Masset a two year contract last offseason for 5 or 6 million.. There's a good chance they will get zero production from that contract.. but that doesn't negate the fact that Jr for Masset was a pretty good trade.

Heck, the Reds paid a roughly 3 - 3.2 million to Bray his entire career, to get spotty production..

RedFanAlways1966
11-06-2012, 08:26 PM
It all depends on how you chose to look at it.

Heck, the Reds paid a roughly 3 - 3.2 million to Bray his entire career, to get spotty production..

I guess it depends on your definition of "production". And then "bang for the buck". What Lopez and Kearns did in WASH was below average (not to mention Lopez' glove). However, in an earlier comment you claimed they were productive in WASH. Versus what? And do we even want to start a discussion on "bang for the buck" relative to AK and FL in WASH? No matter how it is twisted-and-turned (w/ your examples) it was a bad move for WASH. And I am very glad that AK and FL were not making that money for that (lack of) production for two supposed starters on our fav team.

Bray earned less in his entire time here than Lopez did in a single season there. That should just about end the argument. Of course we still have AK's $16+ million in WASH. Pretty obviou$ who got the wor$e of that deal. Production? Better find better production than "Nats starters" AK and FL. Unless they were paid the amount that Bill Bray received while wearing a C on his hat.

REDREAD
11-06-2012, 08:55 PM
IHowever, in an earlier comment you claimed they were productive in WASH. Versus what? .

Clayton and Maj were extreme negative production at the worst possible time.. when we were contending. (Bray was pretty bad too) The trade pretty much knocked us out of contention by weakening the offense and bringing back nothing in return.
For that reason alone, it was a bad trade.
Think if we could've traded for 1 or 2 competent relievers instead... Think if Wayne had a little bit of forsight to guess that Clayton, Freel, and Deno couldn't cover RF and SS.. I'll never forget his comment after the trade "I don't care who plays SS".. That pretty much says it all.

When "the trade" knocked us out of contention, supporters of the trade spun it to be part of some grand plan for the future.. well, we can close the books now.. We got 1.8 WAR out of Bray, over 6 years.. not a very good "build for the future trade". Just as a point of comparison, Arthur Rhodes gave us a 1.6 WAR in 2010 as an inexpensive FA. Not that WAR is perfect, but it's a nice quick comparison..

So the trade neither helped us contend immediately, nor did it help us build for the future. All it did was save us money.. That's like saying the John Allen giveaways of Sullivan, White, Williamson, etc in 2003 were good trades because they saved us money, when in reality they were just giving away talent.

Roy Tucker
11-06-2012, 09:03 PM
That trade would make a good book. Only in baseball can a deal like that spin off so much discussion and dissention and stories.

I will say nobody predicted how it actually did turn out. Not with a bang but with an agate-type wimper.

AtomicDumpling
11-06-2012, 11:41 PM
:lol:

In terms of pure production, the Nats won easily.

I guess some people will claim the Reds won because they save money, but the Reds could've accomplished the same thing by nontendering Kearns and Lopez.
In the end, the Reds got 174 IP out of Bray.. about 80 IP of those (my estimate) were good. The remaining were mediocre or bad. Only accumulated 1.8 WAR over his 6 year stay here.

I remember when people were clinging to Daryl Thompson being the savior of the trade. I guess there will be a new rationalization now to justify the Reds winning this.

The biggest impact was that the 2007 team which was in pseudo-contention collapsed after the "Trade"
Clayton, Maj, and Bray (along with Freel and maybe Deno in the OF after the trade) contributed a lot to the collapse.

Seems like an obvious loss for the Reds to me.

Yes I agree. The Nats got the better players and the Reds collapsed after the deal.

The biggest reason the Reds lost on that trade is they could have gotten a better return than a sub-replacement level player in Royce Clayton and a couple injured middle relievers for those two productive starting players. The consensus around the league at the time was that the Reds rushed into the deal and ended up getting pennies on the dollar in terms of the trade value Kearns and Lopez had at the time. They basically gave away two valuable commodities for a motley collection of worthless players. To make it even worse, two of those players were injured at the time and the Reds didn't realize it because they were in such a rush and didn't do their homework first. It is really embarrassing when you get swindled by the likes of Jim Bowden.

camisadelgolf
11-07-2012, 12:12 AM
Yes I agree. The Nats got the better players and the Reds collapsed after the deal.

The biggest reason the Reds lost on that trade is they could have gotten a better return than a sub-replacement level player in Royce Clayton and a couple injured middle relievers for those two productive starting players. The consensus around the league at the time was that the Reds rushed into the deal and ended up getting pennies on the dollar in terms of the trade value Kearns and Lopez had at the time. They basically gave away two valuable commodities for a motley collection of worthless players. To make it even worse, two of those players were injured at the time and the Reds didn't realize it because they were in such a rush and didn't do their homework first. It is really embarrassing when you get swindled by the likes of Jim Bowden.
The trade hurt the team in 2006 but helped the team for the future. Although I think you're right in that the team could've gotten a better return, it was still a positive trade for the Reds. It saved them several million dollars and allowed for them to upgrade a couple positions.

traderumor
11-07-2012, 12:25 PM
Or of this offseason so far (thought not meant as a complaint - just a statement that not much has happened for the Reds yet)Well it has been all of a week since the offseason officially started. Lollygaggers ;)

Crumbley
11-08-2012, 12:57 AM
Put me in the "I don't care" since the deal is too far removed to have any current impact and everyone involved career's are either dead or on life support. Also, the folks making the deal no longer have any decision making capacity with the Reds. The amount of analysis performed on this trade just goes to show how slim the pickings were in "exciting" transactions of that time period.
Remember the John Vander Wal press conference? He went on to break his knee shoveling snow.

Gallen5862
11-08-2012, 09:10 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Minor Moves: Bray, Valdez, Rondon, Hernandez
By Mark Polishuk [November 8 at 4:38pm CST]
Here are a few of the day's minor transactions...

Left-hander Bill Bray and infielder Wilson Valdez have elected to become free agents, according to MLB.com's transactions page. With Valdez entering his second year of arbitration-eligibility and Bray his third, both players were seen as non-tender candidates by MLBTR's Tim Dierkes following their disappointing seasons for the Reds. Valdez, 34, posted a .463 OPS in 208 plate appearances as a backup infielder. Bray was limited to just 14 games due to groin and back injuries, but he'll surely draw interest from teams looking for lefty relief help; Bray posted a 2.98 ERA and recorded 44 strikeouts over 48 1/3 innings for Cincinnati in 2011.

kaldaniels
11-08-2012, 09:16 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Minor Moves: Bray, Valdez, Rondon, Hernandez
By Mark Polishuk [November 8 at 4:38pm CST]
Here are a few of the day's minor transactions...

Left-hander Bill Bray and infielder Wilson Valdez have elected to become free agents, according to MLB.com's transactions page. With Valdez entering his second year of arbitration-eligibility and Bray his third, both players were seen as non-tender candidates by MLBTR's Tim Dierkes following their disappointing seasons for the Reds. Valdez, 34, posted a .463 OPS in 208 plate appearances as a backup infielder. Bray was limited to just 14 games due to groin and back injuries, but he'll surely draw interest from teams looking for lefty relief help; Bray posted a 2.98 ERA and recorded 44 strikeouts over 48 1/3 innings for Cincinnati in 2011.

Wait Valdez got non-tendered and it didn't get stickied? That's a 2 win improvement!

_Sir_Charles_
11-08-2012, 11:34 PM
no kidding. Much bigger news than Bray IMO. Soooooo glad to see him gone.

Tom Servo
11-08-2012, 11:38 PM
And so the Wilson Valdez era ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.

camisadelgolf
11-09-2012, 02:04 AM
Who would've thought the Reds should've traded Bray for Valdez instead of Jeremy Horst?

M2
11-09-2012, 12:29 PM
:thumbup:
So is In Utero.

It is absolutely NOT better. In Utero is a plodding, tiresome mess of a record.

RedsManRick
11-09-2012, 12:32 PM
Who would've thought the Reds should've traded Bray for Valdez instead of Jeremy Horst?

Well, I'm pretty sure most of us thought it was really silly to trade for him at all...

M2
11-09-2012, 01:08 PM
Clayton and Maj were extreme negative production at the worst possible time.. when we were contending. (Bray was pretty bad too) The trade pretty much knocked us out of contention by weakening the offense and bringing back nothing in return.

Exactly. The Reds instantly became a much worse team after the trade. The two worst players in the deal were Clayton and Majewski. Majewski, in fact, is one of the greatest post-trade flops in any deal ever made. How he was given 78 IP of work by the Reds remains a mystery. He was never anything but awful.

Say what you will about Lopez and Kearns, they both went on to have extended careers in baseball. Lopez had a horrible 2007 (after a serving as a functional leadoff hitter in 2006), but was pretty useful for a few years after that once he shifted to 2B. Kearns gave the Nats a season and half of decent production before falling to pieces. Since then he's picked up the pieces and he's still playing in the bigs. Given that it cost the Nats NOTHING in terms of talent to get those two, I suspect the view from the DC side of things is folks hoped for more, but it was worth a shot at the time.

Meanwhile, all the Reds got in return for their starting RF and SS was an oft-injured LOOGY. I don't care who the RF and SS are, a team that does business like that is headed for trouble. And, sure enough, trouble is what the Reds found. The organization's inability to recover from that deal ultimately cost Wayne Krivsky (who did a good job overall) his job.

M2
11-09-2012, 01:17 PM
Pretty obviou$ who got the wor$e of that deal.

This isn't the Low Payroll Olympics.

camisadelgolf
11-09-2012, 02:52 PM
Well, I'm pretty sure most of us thought it was really silly to trade for him at all...
I don't know anyone outside the organization who thought it was a good idea.

AtomicDumpling
11-09-2012, 04:45 PM
The trade hurt the team in 2006 but helped the team for the future. Although I think you're right in that the team could've gotten a better return, it was still a positive trade for the Reds. It saved them several million dollars and allowed for them to upgrade a couple positions.

True, the trade ended up saving them some money because the players they received were so terrible that they failed to earn any raises and were eventually released. The trade was not designed to save money. That was never part of their rationale for making the trade. The Reds were in a pennant race at the time and were not trying to purge salary. The trade was made with the idea of improving the team for the stretch run and it failed miserably. The Reds earned a lot of laughs around the league for getting taken to the cleaners by Jim Bowden.

Patrick Bateman
11-09-2012, 04:48 PM
Saving money only means something if it is reinvested to either obtain other players or help key important parts of the team when existing payroll is maxed.

Trading Kearns and Lopez did nothing at the time to explore either of those.

It was an awful trade at the time, and really, even in hindsight. There's just no way they got fair value at the time of the trade, and it directly hurt our playoff chances that year.

The fact that Lopez and Kearns had pretty bad careers after the trade helps ease the pain, and perhaps shows some foresight on the Reds part in targeting them as tradeable parts, but the bottom line yielded nothing positive for the Reds.

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 05:24 PM
I don't know anyone outside the organization who thought it was a good idea.

The deal had supporters here. Not me for sure, but there were some.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93698&highlight=Valdez

camisadelgolf
11-09-2012, 06:01 PM
True, the trade ended up saving them some money because the players they received were so terrible that they failed to earn any raises and were eventually released. The trade was not designed to save money. That was never part of their rationale for making the trade. The Reds were in a pennant race at the time and were not trying to purge salary. The trade was made with the idea of improving the team for the stretch run and it failed miserably. The Reds earned a lot of laughs around the league for getting taken to the cleaners by Jim Bowden.
I don't see how you can be so sure about that. I don't think it was any coincidence that Kearns and Lopez were about to hit their arbitration years, and that point was even brought up at the time of the trade.

camisadelgolf
11-09-2012, 06:06 PM
The deal had supporters here. Not me for sure, but there were some.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93698&highlight=Valdez
Well, I guess nothing on RedsZone is unanimous. But I'd say they had the right idea in obtaining a veteran utility player who can play shortstop, but he certainly wouldn't have been my target.

Wonderful Monds
11-09-2012, 06:31 PM
I don't see how you can be so sure about that. I don't think it was any coincidence that Kearns and Lopez were about to hit their arbitration years, and that point was even brought up at the time of the trade.

Lopez was an All Star SS the year before. No way he was a salary dump.

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 06:35 PM
Well, I guess nothing on RedsZone is unanimous. But I'd say they had the right idea in obtaining a veteran utility player who can play shortstop, but he certainly wouldn't have been my target.

If nothing else, it was fun re-reading that thread. Boy, TRF really got worked up about that deal (sorry, about the allocation of resources). LOL.

camisadelgolf
11-09-2012, 06:40 PM
Lopez was an All Star SS the year before. No way he was a salary dump.
He played a poor shortstop for a manager who valued good defense at the position. It certainly wasn't advertised as a salary dump, but Krivsky clearly didn't see him as the long term solution.

Wonderful Monds
11-09-2012, 08:48 PM
He played a poor shortstop for a manager who valued good defense at the position. It certainly wasn't advertised as a salary dump, but Krivsky clearly didn't see him as the long term solution.

So move him to a different position. He already proved to be a very capable hitter, as far as we knew.

To suggest it was a salary dump is really grasping at straws.

Tom Servo
11-09-2012, 09:17 PM
Krivsky didn't seem to like FeLo, and Narron REALLY seemed to not like him. I think they just undervalued his trade value by their own metrics.

Ravenlord
11-09-2012, 09:43 PM
Krivsky didn't seem to like FeLo, and Narron REALLY seemed to not like him. I think they just undervalued his trade value by their own metrics.

i think in large part that was because Krivsky is a tools guy and an exceptional evaluator of said tools--and felt that Lopez lacked on fielding and throwing.

camisadelgolf
11-10-2012, 05:36 AM
So move him to a different position. He already proved to be a very capable hitter, as far as we knew.

To suggest it was a salary dump is really grasping at straws.
Move him to another position? As in to replace Brandon Phillips, Edwin Encarnacion, or Scott Hatteberg/Joey Votto? He didn't play good defense, he was becoming expensive/overpaid, and on top of that, he had character issues. He was an offense-first shortstop with decent-but-not-great numbers. He had a lot of promise but simply wasn't all that good. The Reds made the right move in cutting bait with him. Could they have gotten a better return? Probably. But it was an addition by subtraction. I'd say the same about Kearns. You can say it was a bad trade in terms of the return they got, but overall, it helped the team in the long run. It saved them over $18M within the first couple years of trading them, and they needed the money to extend Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo. It was supposed to help the Reds get to the playoffs--and admittedly, it hurt them in 2006--but it was also supposed to be a big-picture move for the future, and it worked out in that sense.